"... A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E. Epstein, a businessman who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile men: a member of the British Royal family and an American lawyer. ..."
"... About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age. He has people . People who make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door that Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than "May I see your ID, Miss?" ..."
"... On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations. He said he would file disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge and a law professor at the University of Utah. ..."
"... The full court filing was published on Mondoweiss a couple of days ago. We learn that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age, and that she was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who seems to have been Jane Doe #3. ..."
Underaged sex with Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew...and Bill Clinton...? (If the claims are true, Hillary is OVER.)
Wow.
A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E. Epstein, a businessman
who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile men: a member of the British Royal family and an American
lawyer.
The motion filed in United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida alleges that Mr. Epstein forced a teenage
girl to have sexual relations with several men, including Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, and Alan M. Dershowitz,
a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. Both men have denied the allegations.
Jeffrey Epstein is not just a businessman. He's a billionaire, and he has already been convicted of soliciting underaged prostitution.
About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age.
He has people . People who make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door
that Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than "May I see your ID, Miss?"
That scenario seems plausible. However, as we shall see, that scenario is not what has been alleged.
We will get to the Prince in a bit. For now, let's focus on Dershowitz.
On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations. He said he would file
disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell,
a former federal judge and a law professor at the University of Utah.
"They are lying deliberately, and I will not stop until they're disbarred," Mr. Dershowitz said in a phone interview.
The very predictability of that furious reaction means that no lawyer would have filed such charges against Dershowitz frivolously.
Cassell has an impressive resume. He's not a young go-getter out to make a name for himself.
I understand that there are a lot of women who have made iffy claims against famous people. But this case seems different. Epstein
has already pled guilty. Moreover, Dershowitz was part of Epstein's legal team.
The full court filing was published on
Mondoweiss a couple of days ago. We learn
that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age, and that she was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell,
daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who
seems to have been Jane Doe #3. Allegedly, the shot was taken by Epstein. (Note: In what follows, the term NPA refers
to non-prosecution agreement .)
Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred
to as a "sex slave." Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign
country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 and 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane
Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on Epstein's
private planes, and elsewhere.
Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful
people. Epstein's purposes in "lending" Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself
with them for business, personal, political and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law
Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual
relations with Dershowiz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Flroida but also on private planes, in New York,
New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz
was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators. Dershowitz would
later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Esptein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that
provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential
co-conspirators of Epstein." NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection
for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been
controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other memebers of Epstein's defense team) and the Government tried to keep
the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime
Victims' Rights Act.
There's a third named participant in these doings, one Jean Luc Brunel, a close Epstein friend and a scout for various modelling
agencies.
He would bring young girls (ranging from ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to
his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls "modeling" jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished
backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money.
The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to
the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe #3's relationship with Epstein would have revealed the fact that
she had been trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly
negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of
Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from
Jane Doe #3 -- all in violation of her rights under the CVRA -- to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA
that would have shed tremendous light on Epstein and other powerful individuals that would likely have prevented it from being
conlcuded in the secretive manner in which it was.
The document also mentions a Jane Doe #4, an impoverished sixteen year old who was told that she could make $300 by giving a "massage"
to an old man in Palm Beach.
This matter seems very serious. We have too many details, too many corroborating witnesses (in the form of four Jane Does). We
have a photo. We have reports of the existence of many, many more photos. The hugger-mugger involving the NPA seems downright ghastly
-- yet all too credible.
Frankly, I would not rule out the possibility that Epstein was working for an intelligence agency -- either Mossad or one of our
own. The Maxwell connection points to Mossad.
This whole business has "honeytrap" written all over it.
The Clinton connection.
The
Daily Mail discloses that one of Epstein's, er, protegees was a woman named Johanna Sjoberg. Since the story links her to Prince
Andrew, it is tempting suppose that she is the aforementioned Jane Doe #3. However, British newspapers have named another young woman,
Virginia Roberts.
Miss Sjoberg worked for Epstein for four years, often massaging him as he lay on a couch in his giant bathroom making phone calls
to friends such as Bill Clinton and Cate Blanchett.
He kept a little black book, containing the numbers of all his masseuses by a phone in the bathroom, she said. She left after
he started becoming 'more aggressive' in his demands that she 'do sexual things to him'.
She said she was aware that the girls recruited by Epstein and his acolytes were not paid just for massages but for 'sexual
favours'.
Virginia Roberts revealed that as a 17-year-old 'erotic masseuse', she was flown by Epstein to London to meet Prince Andrew,
Miss Sjoberg said: 'I'm not surprised he was sending girls abroad. I just did not think they were so young.'
The Prince strongly denies any claim of impropriety, of course.
What about Epstein and Clinton? Obviously, there is nothing wrong in taking a man's phone call, even a call from someone like
Epstein. However...
Bill Clinton was also named dozens of times in lawsuits against Epstein and was alleged to have flown on his private jet more
than 10 times.
Flight logs in lawsuits detailed that between 2002 and 2005 the former US President traveled around the world courtesy of his
friend and stopped at Epstein's Caribbean island Little St James where young girls were supposedly kept as sex slaves.
Clinton was deemed to be so close to Epstein that he was nearly deposed during the investigation into his paedophilia.
Before he was jailed Epstein's other acquaintances are said to have been former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak; former New
Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
Let's make the obvious point. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton, then Hillary's chances at the nomination
are over . A candidacy can withstand many things, but a statutory rape scandal involving one's spouse? No.
Over the years, the casually-dressed, globe-trotting financier, who was said to log more than 600 flying hours a year, has been
linked with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late
media titan Robert Maxwell.
Epstein reportedly flew Tucker and Spacey to Africa on his private jet as part of a charitable endeavour. Clinton, meanwhile,
flew on multiple occasions in the same plane to Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St James, between 2002 and 2005 as
he developed his philanthropic post-presidential career. It would later be alleged in court that Epstein organised orgies on that
same private island in the US Virgin Islands.
Reports in the US media say many of the A-list names broke off any links with the former maths teacher after his arrest and conviction
in 2008 of having sex with an underage girl whom he had solicited. His arrest followed an 11-month undercover investigation at
a mansion in Florida's Palm Beach that Epstein owned.
In 2008, he pleaded guilty to a single charge of soliciting prostitution and was handed a 18-month jail sentence. He served
13 months in jail and was obliged to register as a sex offender. A 2011 report in the New York Post said that he celebrated his
release from jail and his return to a property he maintains in New York – a 45,000-sq-foot eight-storey mansion on East 71st Street
– with Prince Andrew.
The story goes on to give much useful information about Epstein's business dealings.
The financier, who was jailed for 18 months in 2008 after pleading guilty to solicitation for prostitution, kept a sickening stash
of images on a computer seized at his Palm Beach mansion in 2006.
The six-year-old papers, seen by the Sunday People, state: "Some of the photographs in the defendant's possession were taken
with hidden cameras set up in [Epstein's] home in Palm Beach.
"On the Day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in the defendant's
home.
"[He] may have taken lewd photographs of Jane Doe 102 with his hidden cameras and transported [them] to his other residences
and elsewhere."
Court papers also allege that Maxwell presented nude pictures of her she had taken herself to Epstein as a birthday present.
They add that Roberts' claims that she was forced to tell Epstein all about her sexual encounters so he could use the information
to "blackmail" the royal.
She further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful
business executives, foreign presidents, a well known Prime Minister, and other world leaders".
And now let's play our game: Who was that Prime Minister?
To- neeeeee...! If that's you, you're gonna have to say so many rosaries that even the Virgin Mary will get sick of hearing
your voice.
This scandal places our right-wing media in a bind. Obviously, the right-wingers will want to leap on anything that dirties the
Clinton name. On the other hand, anything that reeks of Mossad involvement is untouchable.
"... One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. ..."
"... We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. ..."
"... It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/ ..."
"... Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated" near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow, doubt it. ..."
"... This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia. ..."
"... Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat. ..."
"... Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ..."
"... You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable. ..."
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as "The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News," illustrates how interest
groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke's article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran,
and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that
work closely with the US government. As Trump has neutered his presidency by gratuitously accepting Gen. Flynn's resignation as National
Security Advisor, this scheme is likely to be Trump's approach to "better relations" with Russia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder
from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West
and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent
to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient
directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic
relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is "increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western
financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and
wants." Sweetening the honey trap is official recognization of "Crimea as part of Russia."
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did
not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy. Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology
is superior to that in the West. And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity
to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is
a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development
projects with the issuance of central bank credit. Foreign loans are essential, claims the central bank.
Someone needs to teach the Russian central bank basic economics before Russia is turned into another Western vassal. Here is the
lesson: When central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from
the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money
supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into
its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence
of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their
own development. Indeed, China is the world's largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries that lack the
internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, techlology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies
that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China's development was given a
boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory
costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent
of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal
debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke's article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable
deals with the West. As Russia's neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the
Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic
blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its
oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat outselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists
who have been throughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia
does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues
the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does
is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Yes, correct. But this is an IMF rule, and Russia is an IMF member. To control its monetary policy it would have to get out.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important
to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"!
This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because this will also force
us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been expanding by leaps and bounds for the last
two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder – 2-3% of the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St.
Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West, who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions
didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up?
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to
Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"! This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to
be lifted, because this will also force us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been
expanding by leaps and bounds for the last two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder - 2-3% of
the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St. Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West,
who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say - why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up? ;)
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too
bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity
and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow,
doubt it.
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign. At any
rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that fears gentile
nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed.
Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against
humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine
face I, somehow, doubt it.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin a little
bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough to see
through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
The Russians can't be flummoxed, they aren't children. Russia and China border each other so they have a natural mutual interest
in having their east-west areas be stable and safe, particularly when the US threatens both of them. This geography isn't going
to change. Abandoning clients such as Syria and Iran would irreversibly damage the Russian brand as being unreliable therefore
they'd find it impossible to attract any others in the future. They know this so it's unlikely they would be so rash as to snap
at any bait dangled in front of them. And, as pointed out, the bait really isn't all that irresistible. It's always best to negotiate
from a position of strength and they realize that. American policy deep thinkers are often fantasists who bank upon their chess
opponents making hoped-for predictable moves. That doesn't happen in real life.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this already.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia–a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within the
largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin adjusted
his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that many of
them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced to get down
from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a good hint on
where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still–I personally am not convinced yet. We'll see.
In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains still being around–people
who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov. Let's not forget that
despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure as a Director of FSB,
Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his career. I know for a
fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry. Enough to mention
his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main ideologue behind Russia's
military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade) but who never served a day
in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing with the consequences.
This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation–hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
He has not done it already because he just cannot let go of his dream to have it as he did in 2003, when Russia Germany and
France together blocked legality of US war in Iraq. Putin still hopes for a good working relationship with major West European
powers. Italy France and even Germany.
He still hopes to draw them away from the US. However the obvious gains from Import substitution campaign make it apparent
that Russia does benefit from sanctions, that Russia can get anything it wants in technology from the East rather than the West.
So the break with Western orientation is in the making. Hopefully.
You forgot to mention the "moderate" jihadis, including the operatives from NATO, Israel, and US. (It seems that the Ukrainian
"patriots" that have been bombing the civilians in East Ukraine, also include special "patriots" from the same unholy trinity:
https://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/12/6/there-are-troops-jack-us-army-donbass
). There has been also a certain asymmetry in means: look at the map for the number and location of the US/NATO military bases.
At least we can see that RF has been trying to avoid the hot phase of WWIII.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign.
At any rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that
fears gentile nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is Jewish Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
On the power and privilege that really rule the US:
"Sanctions – economic sanctions, as most of them are, can only stand and 'succeed', as long as countries, who oppose Washington's
dictate remain bound into the western, dollar-based, fraudulent monetary scheme. The system is entirely privatized by a small
Zionist-led elite. FED, Wall Street, Bank for International Settlement (BIS), are all private institutions, largely controlled
by the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan et al clans. They are also supported by the Breton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank,
conveniently created under the Charter of the UN.
Few progressive economists understand how this debt-based pyramid scam is manipulating the entire western economic system. When
in a just world, it should be just the contrary, the economy that shapes, designs and decides the functioning of the monetary
system and policy.
Even Russia, with Atlantists still largely commanding the central bank and much of the financial system, isn't fully detached
from the dollar dominion – yet."
"I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this (nationalize the "central bank) already".
I read about a rumor a few years ago that Putin has been warned that nationalizing the now private Russian central bank will
bring absolutely dire consequences to both him and Russia. It is simply a step he cannot take.
How dire are the potential consequences? Consider that the refusal of the American government to reauthorize the private central
bank in the US brought about the War of 1812. The Americans learned their lesson and quickly reauthorized the private bank after
the war had ended.
Numerous attempts were made to assassinate President Andrew Jacksons specifically because of his refusal to reauthorize the
private central bank.
Here it is in audio form so you can just relax and just listen at your leisure.
*ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS* By Michael Rivero https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
300 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
This is rich from a Ukrainian nationalist ruled by Groysman/Kagans.
First, figure out who is your saint, a collaborationist Bandera (Babiy Yar and such) or a triple-sitizenship Kolomojski (auto-da-fe
of civilians in Odessa). If you still want to bring Holodomor to a discussion, then you need to be reminded that 80% of Ukrainian
Cheka at that time were Jewish. If you still think that Russians are the root of all evil, then try to ask the US for more money
for pensions, education, and healthcare – instead of weaponry. Here are the glorious results of the US-approved governance from
Kiev: http://gnnliberia.com/2017/02/17/liberia-ahead-ukraine-index-economic-freedom-2017/
"Liberia, Chad, Afghanistan, Sudan and Angola are ahead of Ukraine. All these countries are in the group of repressed economies
(49.9-40 scores). Ukraine's economy has contracted deeply and remains very fragile."
Here are your relationships with your neighbors on the other side – Poland and Romania:
"The right-winged conservative orientation of Warsaw makes it remember old Polish-Ukrainian arguments and scores, and claim its
rights on the historically Polish lands of Western Ukraine"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
" the "Assembly of Bukovina Romanians" has recently applied to Petro Poroshenko demanding a territorial autonomy to the Chernivtsi
region densely populated by Romanians. The "Assembly" motivated its demand with the Ukrainian president's abovementioned statement
urging territorial autonomy for the Crimean Tatars."
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/06/30/what-is-behind-romanias-activity-in-ukraine
And please read some history books about Crimea. Or at least Wikipedia:
"In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic by Nikita Khrushchev (a Soviet dictator). In 2014, a 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted for integration of the region into
the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout." You see, the Crimeans do not like Nuland-Kagan and Pravyj Sector.
Do you know why?
100 Words @Seamus
Padraig Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin
a little bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough
to see through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
well it depends. if putin is just out for himself, I can see him getting in bed with kissinger and co. if he is about russia,
he would not. that is how I see it. it isn't about if putin is smart or stupid. just a choice and where his royalty lies.
100 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine.
How so? #Krymnash
Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves.
If by "decline" you mean "expects this year a modest growth as opposed to previous years" then you might be right.
I've been reading about Russia's imminent collapse and the annihilation of the economy since forever. Some no-names like you
(or some Big Names with agenda) had been predicting it every year. Still didn't happen.
Putin is almost down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid
now.
Can I see a source for that?
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
False equivalence.
P.S. Hey, Quart – how is Bezviz? Also – are you not cold here? Or are you one of the most racally pure Ukrs, currently residing
in Ontario province (Canada), from whence you teach your less lucky raguls in Nizalezhnaya how to be more racially pure? Well,
SUGS to be you!
@Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Do you have any links to verify this that Russia is down to bedrock,from everything I read and have read Russia's do pretty
damn good, or is this just some more of your endless antiRussian propaganda,,
A scandal of a EU member Poland:
http://thesaker.is/zmiana-piskorski-and-the-case-for-polish-liberation/
Two days after he [Piskorski] publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds
of combatting "Russian hybrid war," he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland's Internal Security Agency while taking his children
to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day."
With the Poland's entry into EU, "Poland did not "regain" sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist
project Poland has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic
policies Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government's
relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation
is not a mere taxation on Poland's national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country
into a direct target and battlefield in the US' provocative war on Russia."
" it's not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It's not the Russians that
have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It's not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it's not the
Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored
in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this."
More from a comment section: "Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served
in Hitler's Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally,
"as with terrorists". While the Polish special services were training the future participants of the Maidan operations and the
ethnic cleansing of the Donbass, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this official statement (02-02-2014): "We support
the hard line taken by the Right Sector The radical actions of the Right Sector and other militant groups of demonstrators and
the use of force by protesters are justified The Right Sector has taken full responsibility for all the acts of violence during
the recent protests. This is an honest position, and we respect it. The politicians have failed at their peacekeeping function.
This means that the only acceptable option is the radical actions of the Right Sector. There is no other alternative".
In short, the US has been the most active enabler of the neo-Nazi movement in Europe. Mrs. Clinton seemingly did not get a
memo about who is "new Hitler."
Do you happen to know anything about western financial giants' influence upon Russia's "Atlanticist Integrationists"?
It's low hanging fruit for me to take a pick, but I am thinking The Goldman Sachs Group is well ensconced among Russian "Atlanticist
Integrationists."
You guys are top seeded pros at uncovering Deep State-banker secrets. In contrast, I drive school bus and I struggle to even
balance the family Wells Fargo debit card!
However, since our US Congress has anointed a seasoned G.S.G. veteran, Steve Mnuchin, as the administration's Treasury Secretary,
he has become my favorite "Person of Interest" who I suspect spouts a Ural Mountain-level say as to how "Atlanticist Integrationists"
operate.
Speaking very respectfully, I hope my question does not get "flummoxed" into resource rich Siberia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead
.
Most likely the Spirit of Anti-Christ keeping them alive to do his bidding.
@Priss Factor
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
What an amazing whoring performance for the war-manufacturers! And here is an interesting morsel of information about the belligerent
Frau der Leyen:
http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-accuses-von-der-leyen-of-misrepresentation/a-18775432
"Stanford university has said Ursula von der Leyen is misrepresenting her affiliation with the school. The German defense minister's
academic career is already under scrutiny after accusations of plagiarism." No kidding. Some "Ursula von der Leyen' values" indeed.
I doubt we'll see little change from the Trump administration toward Russia.
From SOTT:
Predictable news coming out of Yemen: Saudi-backed "Southern Resistance" forces and Hadi loyalists, alongside al-Qaeda of
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), launched a new offensive against the Houthis in western Yemen on Wednesday.
This is not the first time Saudi-backed (and by extension, Washington-backed) forces have teamed up with al-Qaeda in Yemen
.
Yemen is quickly becoming the "spark that lights the powder keg". The conflict has already killed, maimed and displaced
countless thousands (thanks to the stellar lack of reporting from trustworthy western news sources, we can only estimate the
scale of Saudi/U.S. crimes in Yemen), but now it seems that elements of the Trump administration are keen on escalation, likely
in hopes of giving Washington an excuse to carpet bomb Tehran.
Apparently, we feel satisfied fighting with our old allies, al-Qaeda and Saudis.
I think that the authors may be underestimating Putin in his determination to keep Russia and the Russian economy independent.
For example, I find this rumoured offer of "increased access to the huge European energy market" very funny, for at least two
reasons:
1) US wants to sell hydrocarbons (LPG) to the European market at significantly higher prices than the Russian prices, and
2) the current dependence of EU countries on the Russian energy would have never happened if there were better alternatives.
In other words, any detente offer that the West would make to Russia would last, as usual, not even until the signature ink
dries on the new cooperation agreements. Putin does not look to me like someone who suffers much from wishful thinking.
The Russian relationship with China is not a bed of roses, but it is not China which is increasing military activity all
around Russia, it is the West. Also, so far China has shown no interest in regime-changing Russia and dividing it into pieces.
Would you rather believe in the reform capability of an addict in violence or someone who does not need to reform? Would the West
self-reform and sincerely renounce violence just by signing a new agreement with Russia?
The new faux detente will never happen, as long as Putin is alive.
Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat.
The only one stopping Trump is Putin or Russia's missile defenses.
Indeed, Putin's main inside enemy is Russia's central bank, or the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (Atlanticists). Also Russia needs
to foster and encourage small&medium enterprises, that need cheap credit, to create competitive markets, where no prices are fixed
and market shares change. These are most efficient resource users.
In the US, Wallstreet controls government = fascism = the IG Farben- Auschwitz concentration camps to maximize profits. This
is the direction for the US economy.
Meanwhile in the EU, the former Auschwitz owners IG Farben (Bayer(Monsanto), Hoechst, BASF) the EU chemical giants, who have
patented all natures molecules, are in controll again over EU. Deutsche bank et allies is eating Greece, Italy, Spain's working
classes, using AUSTERITY as their creed.
So what is new? Nothing, the supercorporate-fascist elites are the same families, who 's morality is unchanged in a 100 years.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
I would really love to like Putin and I am trying but him protecting all those criminals and not reversing the history greatest
heist of 90′s makes it impossible. While I am behind all his moves to restore Russian military and foreign policy, I am still
waiting for more on home front. Note, not only the Bank must be nationalized. Everything, all industries, factories and other
assets privatized by now must be returned to rightful owner. Public which over 70 years through great sacrifice built all of it.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia--a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within
the largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin
adjusted his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that
many of them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced
to get down from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a
good hint on where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still--I personally am not convinced
yet. We'll see. In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains
still being around--people who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov.
Let's not forget that despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure
as a Director of FSB, Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his
career. I know for a fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry.
Enough to mention his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main
ideologue behind Russia's military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade)
but who never served a day in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing
with the consequences. This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation--hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
Smoothie, you seem to have natural aversion towards lawyers
Albeit, the first Vladimir, I mean Lenin also was a lawyers by education still he was a rather quick study. Remember that military
communism and Lenin after one year after Bolsheviks took power telling that state capitalism would be great step forward for Russia
whcih obviously was backward and ruined by wars at the time and he proceeded with New Economic Policy and Lenin despite not being
industry captain realized pretty well what constituted state power hence GOELRO plans and electrification of all Russia plans
and so forth which was later turned by Stalin and his team into reality.
Now, Lenin was ideologically motivated and so is Putin. But he clearly has been trying to achieve different results by keeping
same people around him and doing same things. Hopefully it is changing now, but it is so much wasted time when old Vladimir was
always repeating that time is of essence and delay is like death knell. Putin imho is away too relax and even vain in some way,
hence those shirtless pictures and those on the bike. And the way he walks a la "Я Московский озорной гуляка". As you said it
looks like he is protecting those criminals who must be prosecuted and yes, many executed for what they caused.
I suspect in cases when it comes to economical development he is not picking right people for those jobs and it is his major
responsibility to assign right people and delegate power properly, not to be forgotten to reverse what constitutes the history
greatest heist and crime so called "privatization". Basically returning to more communal society minus Politburo.
There is a huge elephant in the room too. Russia demographic situation which I doubt can be addressed under current liberal
order. all states which are in liberal state of affairs fail to basically procreate hence these waves of immigrants brought into
all Western Nations. Russia cannot do it. It would be suicide which is what all Western countries are doing right now.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech
industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would
stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable.
Some home reading (sorry, they are in Russian, but one ought to know the language if one writes about the country).
How Strzok could miss those? They were available to him since 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House. ..."
"... Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted prior to release by the State Department. ..."
"... In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over Israel's announced changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade. ..."
"... In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law." ..."
"... Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop? ..."
"... The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks. Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that laptop. ..."
"... "Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!! ..."
"... The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. ..."
"... Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to Andy and friends at the FBI. ..."
As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what
prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the
Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House.
Of course, while the Hillary campaign attempted to dismiss the emails as just another 'nothing burger', the
Daily
Mail reports that an initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified
at the 'confidential level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses.
The classified emails date from 2010-2012, and concern discussions with Middle East leaders, including those from the United Arab
Emirates, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas - which was
declared a terrorist organization by the European Court of Justice in July. Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted
prior to release by the State Department.
According to the
Daily
Mail , three of the emails were sent either to or from an address called "BBB Backup," which one email identifies as a backup
of a Blackberry Bold 9700 - presumably belonging to Abedin.
As a civilian, Weiner - though once a congressman, was unlikely to have possessed the proper clearance to view or store the classified
documents on his laptop .
A sample of the documents can be seen below, first, a "Call Sheet" prepared for Hillary's discussion with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu:
And another update regarding "Hamas-PLO Talks":
In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton
and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email
discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over
Israel's announced
changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade.
One wonders why Anthony Weiner would need to know about this?
Abedin also forwarded Weiner an email discussion
from July 22, 2012 which had previously been released by WikiLeaks - which included the Ambassador to Senegal, Mushingi Tulinabo.
While the contents of the email are redacted, Senegal had elected a new President
earlier that month . Of note, the Clinton Foundation
has supported or been involved in several projects in the country.
In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal
court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping
with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these
government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious
investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law."
Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.'
Not surprisingly, Abedin was spotted heading into the Hillary Clinton offices in midtown Manhattan earlier today just a few hours
before the release of the 2,800 emails. Seems you're never too old to be called into the Principal's office...
We're confident this will all be promptly dismissed by Hillary as just another effort to "criminalize behavior that is normal
"because what government employee hasn't shared classified materials with their convicted pedophile husband? Certainly, just another
boring day in Washington... Tags Politics
Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop?
The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified
as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks.
Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that
laptop.
It's been reported on an other site that the Awan trial, which had been postponed until Jan 8th, is now erased from all federal
court dockets. No one knows the significance of this, whether it means the "fix" is in or they are turning state's evidence on
Hillary, etc? I hope it's the latter but knowing Sessions and the rest of the fucking corrupt pieces of shit in the DOJ and FBI,
I fear these assholes are being let off the hook.
"Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!!
The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one
would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using
civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. The question is why are those who are being paid with our tax dollars to
enforce the law in criminal courts expending so much effort to avoid doing that job.
Ultimately, President Trump has to answer that question because this is now coming out on his watch.
Ya, its pretty infuriating. Trumps been in office for a year. Sessions, at least on paper, is in charge of the DOJ. The FBI
works for him too. Why isn't anything being done about this?
I wonder, will Abedin be the fall girl for the Clintons? "It was all her fault! She took the emails without me knowing it!" Her being "called into the principal's office" is also telling. Instructions on what to say.
I am curious as to what assurances we have that there weren't actually another 100 emails that didn't just magically disappear?
We've given these alphabet agencies years to "redact" sensitive material, how do we know that the "smoking gun" emails weren't
redacted entirely?
DNC doing actual opposition research by paying actual Russians for information is perfectly acceptable. Trump team allegedly doing opposition research by speaking with Russians is a criminal offence. That seems reasonable.
Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to
Andy and friends at the FBI.
I was searching for a word to describe our media and Federal law enforcement who are both impervious to truth and justice.
It led me to wondering if the Devil permits truth to penetrate in Hell and decided that the condemned there hear more of it that
Americans do today. You'd have to go back to NAZI Germany or Stalinist Russia for a comparison of how little we're told was true.
Don't believe me? We're mushrooms, kept in a dark cave and fed a steady diet of bullshit. We're GOOD mushrooms. A bumper crop
this year.
The emails were discovered on Anthony's laptop by NYPD when they were investigating the pervert's connection to the child in
North Carolina. The laptop was turned over to the FBI. If you want to say the FBI discovered the emails, that takes the credit
away from the NYPD. Comey reopened the Hillary investigation because NYPD kept copies.
" [A]n initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified at the 'confidential
level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses. "
While I'm for anything and everything that harms the Clinton family and its cohort, let me point out that the 'confidential
level' security classification, in addition to being the third most sensitive level of security classification is also also the
very lowest level of security classification.
One would hope (in vain I've recently concluded) that ZH would make some small attempt to not slant its 'news' coverage with
such erroneous and inflammatory 'reporting'. I thought we had decided to leave fear mongering and lying to the mainstream media.
I suppose I was wrong.
Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his
family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!
You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left.
You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating
Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.
These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda
that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get
just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe
that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.
So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep
on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?
Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are
controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all
the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them
because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them.
If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK
murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.
This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem
when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have
our country back.
"I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and
misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, the
Trump Campaign and the Russian state," Stone writes in the opening statement he provided to The
Daily Caller.
WAIT! Didn't Debbie Washerwoman Shultz's long term, computer team from Pakistan just
get criminally charged with not only hacking over 30+ democrats in the House and possessing not
only the DNC files and all of Shultz files but also of selectively sending secure DNC and
congressional files to their own clandestine server, and then probably dispersing those files
to various foreign parties or the highest bidders?
WHEN THIS WAS UNCOVERED IN PART, THE
DEMOCRATS DESPERATELY COBBLED TOGETHER INFORMATION FROM A DOSSIER AND OTHER SOURCES AND ACCUSED
TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS! DUH!!!!!!!!!sm
Well as long as this guy 'believes' it then I guess there's no need for evidence. Go
forth, subservient minions and spread the fake news based on a Trump advisors 'feelings'.
Because there's no incentive for a Trump advisor to say something negative about Democrats so
by all means, spread it as if it were true and if ANYONE asks for evidence or says you're wrong
don't you DARE give them any kind of evidence, or talk to them like they have a valid request-
just get mad, freak out, call them a 'libtard'
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to
its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from neo-McCarthyism –
smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats or intelligence, and into xenophobia –
eyeing
any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope
that many commentators have long predicted.
The American government has now gone full blown McCarthy.
The fact that Russia hating, progressive left news channel, The Young Turks, has uncovered and published
this bombshell email should concern all Russian Americans that the witch-hunt against Russia may now be
extended to US citizens, residents, and tourists in the United States
no evidence needed except
profiling based on Russian heritage.
The Young Turks Network (TYT), a popular progressive YouTube channel and news site,
has
obtained a bombshell internal email
related to the Senate committee probing alleged Russian
interference in the American political system, and though currently being covered in Russian media,
mainstream US media is passing it over without comment.
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or
Russian descent" relevant to its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from
neo-McCarthyism – smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats
or intelligence, and into xenophobia –
eyeing any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a
potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope that many commentators
have long predicted.
Confident elite does not file such "amicus briefs". This is a sign of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Frightened
elite now was to stigmatize the dissent.
Notable quotes:
"... The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or confusion over sources of information." ..."
"... Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s." ..."
"... In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association". It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea: https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641 ..."
"... They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position is in context. ..."
"... Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words, 'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'. ..."
"... Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training. ..."
In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including former
deputy secretary of state William Burns; former CIA director John Brennan; former director of national intelligence James Clapper;
and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably includes free speech),
filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit.
The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence
in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived
as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or
confusion over sources of information."
The former officials portray the amicus brief as an offering of neutral ("Amici submit this brief on behalf of neither party")
expertise ("to offer the Court their broad perspective, informed by careers spent working inside the U.S. government").
The brief claims that Putin's Russia has not only "actively spread disinformation online in order to exploit racial, cultural
and political divisions across the country" but also "conducted cyber espionage operations to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic
process and, in the general election, influence the results against Secretary Hillary Clinton."
Much of this has been said before. But where the briefers branch off into new territory is in their attempt to characterize journalism
and political speech with which they disagree as acts of subversion on behalf of a foreign power.
According to the 14 former officials, Russia's active-measure campaign relies "on intermediaries or 'cut outs' inside a country,"
which are rather broadly defined as "political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies,
nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen."
Such "intermediaries" can range from "the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest,
to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced
to directly advance Russian operations and objectives."
In other words, a Russian "cut out" (or fifth columnist) can be defined as those "activists, academics, journalists, [or] web
operators" who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief.
In a recent essay for the London Review of Books, the historian Jackson Lears observed that "the religion of the Russian hack
depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords." And this
amicus brief is one such pronouncement.
In spite of the brief's high-flown language ("The threat posed to our democracy by Russian active measures campaigns is serious,
ongoing and will require vigilance on the part of the U.S. government and people"), it is little more than yet another effort to
stigmatize political speech that questions the necessity of demonizing Russia -- political speech, in other words, with which these
former high-ranking intelligence and national-security officials surely disagree.
Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation
of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
That is only too true; indeed, as of this writing, the Russia-Trump collusion narrative is fast devolving into an effort to stigmatize
and marginalize expressions of dissent, with the overarching aim of short-circuiting and stifling debate over US-Russia policy.
Knowledge is power, the truth will set you free. Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections":
The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
Not only no forgeries, which means the emails told the truth about what these morons were doing, but also it's been demonstrated
that the emails could only have been downloaded to a thumb drive because of the speeds they were transmitted. Why these fucking
dimwits keep overlooking that inconvenient truth is anyone's guess, likely because it doesn't dovetail with their scenario of
a Russian hack. This lawsuit goes nowhere but is being used to slowdown and divert attention away from the crimes of the DNC,
et al.
It burns me that Brennan and Clapper, those two fucking traitorous cunts, filed a brief supporting this bullshit. Those 2 assholes
were running the illegal spy operation against Trump during his campaign.
"In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including
former deputy secretary of state William Burns ; former CIA director John Brennan ; former director of national intelligence
James Clapper ; and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably
includes free speech), filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit."
How revealing, the co-conspirators have filed an amicus brief ;-)
In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association".
It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea:
https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641
At the very minimum many high fliers who put on these Smith-Mundt hoaxes are going away for charity fraud. That's one reason
they're so desperate.
They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position
is in context. It's a bit like my wife when I tell her I'm not in the mood.. hehehehehe
"In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls
a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the
bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words,
'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'.
Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training.
They have violated their oaths of office and have conspired to over through the constitutionally elected President of the United
States. Instead of filing amicus brief they should be swinging from ropes.
Yeah true, but think of the Army of New Recruits/Converts if Trump had the foresight/Inclination to Drain that SWAMP . . .
. To have a modicum of credibility in my eyes he'd have to Deputize Deplorables to shoot these treasonous bastards in the face.
We see this thought pattern all over college and lower education now. People defending the right to censor and even criminalize
things they don't believe in and often enough these people have nice penalties for not bowing down to our betters...We've come
full circle back to King George the III and the American Revolution it seems..The founders had enough of this exact bullshit ...
All nonsense. The Russians wanted Hillary to win. She (and everybody else) was already bought and paid for after Uranium One.
John Brennan still needs to answer for Passport Gate and the murder of his employee, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., in 2008 two weeks
before he was to testify. Brennan hacked the State department and tampered Obama's passport and was rewarded with the first post-election
appointment. Before there was Seth Rich there was 24 year old, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.
Claptrap, Brennan . . . two warmongering Shadow Government Lackey's who should be in Orange Jumpsuits. 12 months on and NO
jail sentences. MoFo Puppet!
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a really interesting player as for DNC leak... This Anan brothers story is simply incredible
and probably hides some really nasty staff related to DNC espionage over congress members.
Notable quotes:
"... To briefly recap, our report from last week , the Awan family - which was employed by quite a number of House Democrats, had full access to highly sensitive Congressional computer systems , both on-site and remotely from Pakistan , with which they are suspected of committing a variety of crimes - including brokering classified information to hostile foreign governments. ..."
"... would frequently simply go across the street to longstanding dealership called AAA Motors and get one. ..."
"... While Imran and Abid Awan ran their car dealership in Falls Church, Va. in the early part of the decade, Drug Enforcement Agency officials a few miles away in Chantilly were learning that the Iranian-linked terrorist group frequently deployed used car dealerships in the US to launder money and fund terrorism , according to an explosive new Politico expose. - Daily Caller ..."
"... "Based on the modest way Awan was living, it is my opinion that he was sending most of his money to a group or criminal organization that could very well be connected with the Pakistani government ," said Wayne Black - a private investigator who worked in Janet Reno's Miami public corruption unit, adding " My instincts tell me Awan was probably operating a foreign intelligence gathering operation on US soil." ..."
"... In February, the Daily Caller dropped two bombshells: that the Awans were under criminal investigation after being caught accessing congressional computers without permission, and they had borrowed, laundered, and never repaid $100,000 from a shady Iraqi expat physician – Dr. Ali al-Attar , a Hezbollah-linked fugitive who led a group of other expats which regularly advised the Bush administration on their plans to invade Iraq in 2002-2003 ( source ). ..."
"... Al-Attar's license to practice medicine was revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians and he had to pay a $50,000 fine for unprofessional conduct, healthcare fraud, and failure to cooperate with an investigation. ..."
"... It's not clear where the dealership's money was going, because it was sued by at least five different people on all ends of a typical car business who said they were stiffed. ..."
"... CIA didn't pay the security deposit, rent or taxes for its building, it didn't pay wholesalers who provided cars, and it sold broken cars to people and then refused to honor the warranties, the lawsuits say . ..."
"... Moreover, when the Awans' shady car dealership ran into money troubles, Florida Congressman Theo Deutch began paying a monthly salary to a man who had threatened to sue the Awans . ..."
"... The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working for the House, the brothers were running a car dealership full-time that didn't pay its vendors, and after one -- Rao Abbas -- threatened to sue them, he began receiving a paycheck from Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL), who like Wasserman Schultz represents Florida. - Daily Caller ..."
"... " It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry," the Marine said. " It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over ." ..."
"... If the Awans cut a deal , one might speculate that a liberal prosecutor and a DNC-friendly court might be conducting a dog-and-pony show. For months, rumors swirled that brother of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Wasserman was handling the prosecution - however court filings reveal that assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando is handling the case. Marando is married to JoAnna Wasserman - an employee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in D.C. ..."
"... While the notion that Imran Awan cut a deal based on his name vanishing from the court calendar, Federal prosecutors certainly have enough evidence against the Awan clan to put them away for a long time. Perhaps they've decided they like the outside of a prison cell better than the alternative. ..."
Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller pointed out a mysterious twist in the case of Pakistani national and long-time DNC IT contractor,
Imran Awan - who was arrested in July at Dulles Airport while trying to flee the country after having wired nearly $300,000 to Pakistan
.
Awan's court date on four counts related to bank fraud, which had already been reschedule twice, has disappeared from the docket
altogether:
Which begs the question - did Imran Awan cut a deal with Federal prosecutors?
Of note - Imran's wife, Hina Alvi - who had fled to Pakistan in March with the Awan children,
struck a deal with federal prosecutors in September to return to the U.S. and face charges. One wonders why Alvi would willingly
leave the relative security of her family in Pakistan to face arraignment in the United States?
To briefly recap, our
report from last week , the Awan family - which was employed by quite a number of House Democrats, had full access to highly
sensitive Congressional computer systems , both on-site and remotely from Pakistan , with which they are suspected of committing
a variety of crimes - including brokering classified information to hostile foreign governments.
Of note, the Awans had access to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - whose members have top secret clearance
and are looking into Russian election interference.
The Pakistani nationals also operated a shady used car dealership in Falls Church, VA operating under the title "CIA" which Luke
Rosiak of The Daily Caller reported has all the signs of a money laundering operation .
On its Facebook page, CIA's "staff" were fake personalities such as "James Falls O'Brien," whose photo was taken from a
hairstyle mode l catalog, and "Jade Julia," whose image came from a web page called "Beautiful Girls Wallpaper."
If a customer showed up looking to buy a car from Cars International A, often referred to as CIA, Abid Awan -- who was managing
partner of the dealership while also earning $160,000 handling IT for House Democrats -- would frequently simply go across the
street to longstanding dealership called AAA Motors and get one.
While Imran and Abid Awan ran their car dealership in Falls Church, Va. in the early part of the decade, Drug Enforcement Agency
officials a few miles away in Chantilly were learning that the Iranian-linked terrorist group frequently deployed used car dealerships
in the US to launder money and fund terrorism , according to an explosive new
Politico
expose. -
Daily Caller
"Based on the modest way Awan was living, it is my opinion that he was sending most of his money to a group or criminal organization
that could very well be connected with the Pakistani government ," said Wayne Black - a private investigator who worked in Janet
Reno's Miami public corruption unit, adding " My instincts tell me Awan was probably operating a foreign intelligence gathering operation
on US soil."
The money which the Awans borrowed was moved from Ali Al-Attar through accounts intended for Fairfax County real estate. Both
Imran Awan and Khattak -- who also put up $200,000 in cash as an investor in CIA -- had realtors licenses.
Dr. Ali al-Attar
Al-Attar's license to practice medicine was revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians and he had to pay a $50,000 fine
for unprofessional conduct, healthcare fraud, and failure to cooperate with an investigation.
It's not clear where the dealership's money was going, because it was sued by at least five different people on all ends of
a typical car business who said they were stiffed.
CIA didn't pay the security deposit, rent or taxes for its building, it didn't pay wholesalers who provided cars, and it sold
broken cars to people and then refused to honor the warranties,
the lawsuits say .
Moreover, when the Awans' shady car dealership ran into money troubles, Florida Congressman Theo Deutch began paying a monthly
salary to a man who had threatened to sue the Awans .
Rep Theo Deutch (D-FL), Awan Benefactor
The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working
for the House, the brothers were running a car dealership full-time that didn't pay its vendors, and after one -- Rao Abbas --
threatened to sue them, he began receiving a paycheck from Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL), who like Wasserman Schultz represents
Florida. - Daily Caller
The Awans were also turned into the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by two renters occupying a home they owned , after
they found "wireless routers, hard drives that look like they tried to destro y, laptops, [and] a lot of brand new expensive toner"
in the garage.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity over concerns for his wife's naval career, the former Marine told the Daily Caller:
" It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry," the Marine said.
" It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over ."
If the Awans cut a deal , one might speculate that a liberal prosecutor and a DNC-friendly court might be conducting a dog-and-pony
show. For months, rumors swirled that brother of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Wasserman was
handling the prosecution - however court filings reveal that assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando is handling the case. Marando
is married to JoAnna Wasserman - an employee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in
D.C.
While JoAnna Wasserman shares a maiden name with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, her parents are named Mark and Donna, while Debbie
Wasserman Shultz's parents are Larry and Ann Wasserman. Plus, if there's any relation, JoAnna Wasserman got all of the family's good
genetics.
US Attorney Michael J. Marando and wife JoAnna Wasserman (top). Steve Schultz and wife Debbie Wasserman Schultz (bottom)
While the notion that Imran Awan cut a deal based on his name vanishing from the court calendar, Federal prosecutors certainly
have enough evidence against the Awan clan to put them away for a long time. Perhaps they've decided they like the outside of a prison
cell better than the alternative.
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
Back in August of 2016, which feels like
millions of years ago in terms of everything that's happened in American politics since that time, Glenn
Greenwald published an article in The Intercept titled "
Democrats'
Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S.
". I took note of the
article because I look up to Greenwald, but because of my focus on the US presidential election I couldn't
really see the looming terror on the horizon that he was warning of at the time.
After the election I started getting comments on my
anti-Democratic establishment articles accusing them of being "Kremlin propaganda", and I had no idea how to
respond to this. I'm an Australian mother who started doing political commentary last year because I fell in
love with Bernie Sanders; I've never been to Russia, I've never been involved with Russia, and at that point my
interest in Russia amounted to an affection for Regina Spektor, those cool fur hats and the movie
Spies Like Us
. I'd certainly never in my life been accused of writing
propaganda.
Now these comments have become a daily
occurrence. I make unapologetically frequent use of social media blocking features, but I still get accused of
being a Kremlin propagandist multiple times a day for my skepticism of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and my
criticism of the Democratic party.
And now pro-establishment outlets are starting to
publish attack editorials full of outright lies about me. Rantt News ran a
hit piece
on me last month which
reported
completely falsely that I'm a Russian shill hired "to spread alternative facts and false
equivalencies in order to divide leftists and ensure Trump, Ryan, their cabal of billionaires, and their
newfound Russian friends all continue to enjoy power at the expense of your civil rights." To substantiate his
claim the author cited two articles of mine that I'd written for the Melbourne site Newslogue which were then
republished
without my permission by a website called Russia Insider, with whom I have never had contact
apart from my recent request that they remove the articles.
As I pointed out in
my response to the Rantt smear piece
, Russia Insider very clearly labels those articles as copies that it
took from elsewhere. Here is a screenshot from the
first one
, which very plainly labels the article as having come from Newslogue:
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
"... With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics. Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government ..."
"... The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony alert). ..."
"... That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics (another irony alert) of Russia. ..."
The irony and hypocrisy as well as the buffoonery of the US Beltway Junta is certainly in
full display with it's latest Russophobe allegation of election tampering. Put aside all the
obvious items such as, zero evidence, US elections are already rigged by the US elites before
a single vote is cast, the US has been tampering in just about every countries elections for
decades overtly and covertly- and just consider the more recent attempt BY THE US to tamper
in Russian elections through the ever-handy NED.
With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his
chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian
political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics.
Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government
The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully
funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony
alert).
That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists
should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics
(another irony alert) of Russia.
But yes, of course, let's Call it Democracy and have some pretend outrage in the US
Propaganda Sector where the US Chattering Classes are aghast that Russia won't allow the NED
to interfere in it's elections.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
The key reason of Trump victory was the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA -- voters rejected candidates from two major and
discredited parties and elected outsider -- Trump is vain hopes that he can change the situation for the better (similar hope were
during lection of Obama who also positioned himself as an outsider). So far it looks like he betrayed his voters becoming
"Republican Obama" with fame "Make America Great Again" slogan (great for whom, for military industrial complex ?) instead of
Obama fake slogan "change we can believe in".
Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. ..."
"... Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present ..."
"... Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. ..."
"... Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about: ..."
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false.
Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER
the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present.
Is the investigation a sham? Most of what you read about it is supposition coming from partisan reporters working for partisan
newspapers. The actual facts are few and far between.
Manafort was clearly influence-peddling but for Turkey and a Ukrainian oligarch. Flynn clear did lie but his actions, requesting
Russia delay a response to the expulsion of diplomat and that Russia block a resolution against Israel, appear not to be of themselves
illegal. Trump Jr holding a meeting with a Maltese professor of international relations, a Russian criminal lawyer and a "niece"
of Putin who wasn't in fact a niece of Putin was neither here nor there unless Trump Jr. lied to the FBI.
There is no evidence that the Steele dossier corroborates any of the above acts, but if the Obama regime really used it to
get a FISA warrant then that needs to be investigated. Even the author of the dossier admits it might be 30% wrong.
As for Jill Stein, it's news to me that Mueller is investigating her when it seems to be some Democrats in the Senate who are
doing so.
There have been a lot of "leaks" about the Mueller investigation but most reports suggest none of the leaks come from the investigation
itself which seems to be watertight. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what comes out later and that Trump has claimed he
has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are
going to be disappointed. And nobody can then say that they weren't warned.
What was the lie? You have the "lie" and no one else has it. There is no lie. There wasn't even a lie to Pence. Flynn was NSC
advisor, prior campaign and transition advisor on Nation Security. He was protecting the President's "moves" and doing the President's
business.
Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated
out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to
deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about:
Russia hacked Hillary's server.
Putin poisoned the dissident.
Putin shot the reporter.
Kremlin killed Nemstov on the bridge,
Assad used chemical weapons,
Russia invaded Crimea,
It's all memes for people to accept as facts. Mike Flynn's job is to lie to everyone but his commander-in-chief. That's what
he did. In other words, he told "the truth" which everyone should know could be a lie. Flynn was working for President-elect Trump
as his top Intel man. Of course, he would lie. He spent 33 years in military Intel, rose to the top and told a million lies. Spies
lie. Espionage is about truth and untruth.
As we move into 2018, I am swinging away from the Republicans. I don't support the Paul Ryan "Better Way" agenda . I don't
support neoliberal economics. I think we have been going in the wrong direction since the 1970s
and don't want to continue going down this road.
"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."
"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."
"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."
"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."
"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."
"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."
"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."
"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."
"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."
According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour,
FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials
discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.
That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after
they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research
reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly
conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.
There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era
FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated
with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the
wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The
upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the
point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the
heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's
dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his
scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his
claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were
used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.
There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and
the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired
the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the
dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one,
after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden.
The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see,
the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months
away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI
"can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to
undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his
account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate
allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman
fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend
to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that
the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship
and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its
counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.
But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia"
that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the
allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a
question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the
House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the
question is critical for three reasons:
(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the
Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies
controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced
by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims
of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the
court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence
reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.
(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was
"salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same
way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still
unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months
earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ
used them in an application to the FISA court.
(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted
by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could
be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked --
as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system.
If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin
regime.
How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the
Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted
the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal
inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has
the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the
secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of
legislatively created executive agencies.
In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing
indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however,
that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of
generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I
corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the
travel, you must be right about the crime.
Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected
Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe
corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and
gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI
appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out
nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.
How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for
what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's
private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to
investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British
bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's
organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's
most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other
corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their
"outstanding assistance."
At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational
Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate
deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce
President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's
office.
To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS
(which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS
was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson
appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day
conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
(see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton
campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and
DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.
Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect
that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators
to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.
But that is just the beginning of the bias story.
At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly
before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be
brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified
information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to
investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President
Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI,
shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended
and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to
use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in
their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in
any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects;
the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac
meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton
was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she
would not be charged.
The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy
FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her
(unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100
million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean
Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted
U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.
The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude
that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not
be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led
the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of
Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.
The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary
Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that
Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA
warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially
tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was
reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August
2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the
Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September
2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court
to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying
continued into Trump's presidency.
The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the
warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application
would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI
lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was
having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department --
federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.
Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the
time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to
understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.
June 2016
In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the
"dossier."
In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been
"cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform
to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in
capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be
used against Trump.
In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his
supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go
on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to
Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump
campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email
that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump
campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.
July 2016
Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic
distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7
commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President
Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on
leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July
trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia
and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received
that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings
with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been
informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate
Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation"
in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said
to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."
Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of
staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal
Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in
Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to
have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information --
on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin
further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat'
on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."
The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic
National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.
In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close
associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"
between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The
conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as
intermediaries."
The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to
the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full
knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo,
"the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as
a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense
commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who
needed to cauterise the subject."
Late July to Early August 2016
The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an
intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National
Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do
not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with
government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a
friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele
made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.
August 2016
On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent
Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE
SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not
elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those
allegations.
On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office
at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and
needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought
highly unlikely.
September 2016
Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA
court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had
received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine
whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with
such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic
sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson.
Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not
referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were
actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead
readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was
official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were
briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin
officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid
mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the
Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on
which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which
Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him
about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story
recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts
with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."
Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch
in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime,
championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged
that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government
officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting
with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy
sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name
until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)
Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an
intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit
against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI
interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's
special-counsel investigation.
Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted
informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the
Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S.
officials." According to the Post:
The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy
declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the
Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of
Moscow, officials said.
Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence
operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a
federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative
and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with
Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.
I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application
included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported
"other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very
likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the
meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this
Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the
FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had
not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.
First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016
that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian
intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources
-- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013
investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an
agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things:
exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's
prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation.
According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one
of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.
Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post
asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence
of a crime." That is not accurate.
Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause
showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is
different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1)
applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that
the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine
anti-American activities.
By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2)
applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities
on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities
(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States";
(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international
terrorism;
(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of
a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the
commission of these criminal activities.
All of these involve evidence of a crime.
The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the
allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering
-- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include
treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been
accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal
activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it
certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded
in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the
Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle
for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media
narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift
sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and
President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's
the word? -- resist.
No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a
year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and
obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.
An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected
contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling
around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't
sound like that to me.
The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible
method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.
Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at
the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the
full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.
This will take
some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names
to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is
in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming
activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.
Other
They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of
Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?
"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at
which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency
......."
"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was
actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after
all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden."
This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was
supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all
this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.
Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant
they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will
illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.
We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided
us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.
Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.
But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to
answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter
Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research,
then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of
the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump
which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know
this.
These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when
politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to
overthrow the elected government.
Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as
standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same
conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really
can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt.
Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's
Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.
The question is when does Opposition Research cross the line and become criminal conduct.
Notable quotes:
"... By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text messages ..."
By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's
lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion
probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put
a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that
he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a
senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text
messages . The House Judiciary Committee requested copies of all the text messages from
the Department of Justice but only received a small fraction of them.
Numerous text messages show, in explicit detail, that Strzok and Page were big fans of
Hillary Clinton during the time she was being investigated for violations of the Espionage Act
and while she was campaigning to be president of the U.S. The messages also show the utter
contempt they had for Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump.
When Robert Mueller, special prosecutor in the Trump – Russia collusion investigation,
learned about the existence of these text messages last July, he removed Peter Strzok from his
team of investigators. Strzok was re-assigned to the FBI's human resources department and is
still on the payroll.
After the name of FBI agent Peter Strzok catapulted above the fold, we learned more about
his wide-ranging assignments at the FBI.
Two months prior to then FBI Director, James Comey's formal exoneration of Hillary Clinton,
Strzok edited Comey's draft exoneration letter and suggested key changes that watered down the
allegations against her.
Strzok was present at the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. Clinton
wasn't put under oath prior to her questioning nor was the proceeding recorded, making the
softball interrogation a farce.
Strzok also interviewed Clinton associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller, the previous
month. These interrogations have been roundly criticized by legal authorities as nothing more
than a charade because it is unheard of to have two potential witnesses present at the same
interview.
Strzok was selected to be a key investigator on Mueller's team looking into potential
collusion between President Trump and Russia. He participated in the interview of Michael
Flynn, President Trump's short-lived National Security Advisor, who has pleaded guilty to lying
to the FBI and is now cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Strzok is suspected of being responsible for using an unverified dossier to obtain a FISA
warrant in order to spy on President Trump's campaign.
In one particularly disturbing text message Strzok refers to an insurance policy of some kind
if Trump should be elected, which could be the genesis of the current Trump – Russia
collusion probe, which is yet to yield any hard evidence of collusion.
Apparently, super-agent Peter Strzok was a very busy man at the Bureau and the go-to guy on
high-profile cases involving political figures.
A senior investigator, who expresses extreme opinions about politicians while he is
investigating them, degrades his ability to be objective. One would have to be in deep denial
to believe that Strzok's political sentiments didn't influence his handling of the Clinton
case. Strzok's kid glove treatment of Clinton and her aides during their interviews and his
edits of Comey's draft exoneration document are completely consistent with his favorable
political view of Clinton.
It boggles the mind to think that senior FBI officials, like Strzok and Page, would be
foolish enough to leave an electronic trail of their political proclivities. It is a gross
understatement to say that they should have known better. Apparently, they and others in the
Department of Justice never thought such conflicts of interest would ever be exposed because
they were thoroughly convinced Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their next boss.
They committed the mortal sin of presumption and are suffering the consequences. Presumption
coupled with a monumental lack of discretion increases the chances that a scandal will ensue
and that's exactly what happened in this case.
Although Peter Strzok was highly regarded within the Bureau, no one ever heard of him until
he became an overnight media sensation along with his paramour, Lisa Page. As damning as the
flurry of text messages is to the probity of high-profile criminal investigations, it may only
be the beginning salvo in a barrage of shattering revelations because there are thousands of
his text messages that haven't been released yet. The small fraction that have been submitted
to congress were partially redacted. Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, is also
seeking Strzok's text messages under the Freedom of Information Act. And the House Judiciary
Committee intends to subpoena Strzok to testify under oath.
The DOJ and the FBI have studiously resisted requests for information by claiming the matter
is still under investigation or would compromise intelligence methods and sources, if the
records were released. They say Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is
reviewing the FBI's handling of investigations relating to the presidential election.
Therefore, DOJ officials say congress will have to wait until the IG's review is finished,
giving the IG precedence over congressional oversight. The extreme reluctance of the DOJ and
the FBI to be forthcoming seems to be motivated by a sense of self-preservation more than
anything else given the can of worms Strzok's text messages has opened. This thing could easily
metastasize into a mega-scandal that undermines our justice system at its core.
At the center of this escalating controversy is Mr. Strzok, who is a veritable one-man band.
As the FBI's lead investigator, the guy was all over the place. When James Comey sought input
on the draft Clinton exoneration letter, he solicited and accepted Strzok's recommendations.
Strzok responded with a now-infamous turn-of-phrase. He suggested that Comey change "grossly
negligent" to "extremely careless" when describing Clinton's handling of classified
information. Strzok also watered down Comey's statement that it's "reasonably likely that
hostile actors gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email
account." Strzok thought it would be less harmful to say "possible" than "reasonably likely"
when characterizing our enemies' potential access to hacked classified information.
Despite being indiscrete with his political views, Peter Strzok appears to be a very bright
individual whose counsel was avidly sought and valued by the top echelon of the FBI. In this
respect, he was a lot like Mark Fuhrman, who was the most alert detective on the OJ Simpson
case, seemingly everywhere at the crime scenes. Ultimately, Fuhrman was accused of being
prejudiced against blacks and decided to take the Fifth during the Simpson trial. Strzok may
face a similar fate, except his biases run toward politics.
Like Forrest Gump, the slow-witted protagonist in the eponymous Academy Award winning film,
Strzok was everywhere at defining points in the high-profile FBI investigations of a sitting
president and a would-be president. Unlike Forrest Gump, however, Strzok is anything but
slow-witted. Unfortunately, he let his political predilections affect his law enforcement
duties, which is anathema to the bedrock principle of equal justice under the law.
If the bulk of Strzok's text messages, when released, show that the FBI associates with whom
he communicated had a similar rabid disdain or excessive adoration for those they were
investigating, then the cases they were involved with would be tainted and compromised. And the
premier investigatory body in the world will be derided as the Federal Bureau of
Indiscretion.
Honest rank-and-file FBI agents deserve better. They shouldn't have to report to corrupt
leaders who play politics and sully the Bureau's reputation. If FBI agents see something, they
should say something. The evidence and only the evidence should dictate how the law is applied.
To do otherwise is a travesty of justice.
"... we have email evidence from Andrew McCabe indicating that Hillary Clinton was going to get an 'HQ Special,' a headquarters special. ..."
"... he had a very small group of people that had a pro-Hillary Clinton bias who had a direct role in changing that investigation from one that likely should have been criminal to one where she was able to walk. And so I think that we've gotta ensure that that never happens again, that the same processes that would apply to any American would also apply to people who were running for president of the United States ..."
Friday on FNC's "America's Newsroom," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said a congressional committee had evidence FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe indicated Hillary Clinton was going to get an "HQ special" regarding the investigation of her unauthorized email server and
ties to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure as secretary of state.
Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, described the circumstances at the FBI regarding the investigation as "extreme
pro-Hillary Clinton bias."
"The Judiciary Committee is engaged in an investigation, particularly as it relates to the handling of the Hillary Clinton
email scandal and any potential investigations of the Clinton Foundation and the handling of bribes or other types of improper
payments," Gaetz said. "I can certainly say that my impression after these interviews is that there was extreme pro-Hillary Clinton
bias that benefitted her in this investigation and that she received special treatment as a consequence of her candidacy for president.
That shouldn't happen. The law should apply equally to all Americans whether they're political candidates or not. And so, we need
to institute reforms through the Judiciary Committee for more oversight, for more transparency so that this never happens again."
He went on explain that it was the committee's intention to find out if there was a departure from standard "procedures."
"[O]ur view is we need to find out if whether or not the procedures were departed from," he added. "And we have email evidence
from Andrew McCabe indicating that Hillary Clinton was going to get an 'HQ Special,' a headquarters special. That meant that
the normal processes of the Washington field office weren't followed and he had a special. And he had a very small group of
people that had a pro-Hillary Clinton bias who had a direct role in changing that investigation from one that likely should have
been criminal to one where she was able to walk. And so I think that we've gotta ensure that that never happens again, that the
same processes that would apply to any American would also apply to people who were running for president of the United States."
Presidential Leadership and Abuse in the Workplace
Several Presidents have been accused of gross sexual abuse and humiliation of office staff
and interns, most ignobly William Jefferson Clinton. However, the Congressional Office of
Compliance, in accord with the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 does not collect
statistics on presidential abuses and financial settlements. Nevertheless, we can examine the
number of Congressional victims and payments during the tenures of the various Presidents
during the past 20 years. This can tell us if the Presidents chose to issue any directives or
exercise any leadership with regard to stopping the abuses occurring during their
administrations.
Under Presidents William Clinton and Barack Obama we have data for 12 years 1997-2000, and
2009-2016. Under President George W Bush and Donald Trump we have data for 9 years 2001-2008
and 2017.
Under the two Democratic Presidents, 148 legislative employees were abused and the Treasury
paid out approximately $5 million dollars and under the Republican Presidents, 116 were abused
and Treasury and over $12 million dollars was paid out.
Under the Democratic Presidents, the average number of abuse victims was 12 per year; under
the Republicans the average number was 13 per year. As in the case of Congressional leadership,
US Presidents of both parties showed remarkable bipartisan consistency in tolerating
Congressional abuse.
Congressional Abuse: The Larger Meaning
Workplace abuse by elected leaders in Washington is encouraged by Party cronyism, loyalties
and shameless bootlicking. It is reinforced by the structure of power pervasive in the ruling
class. Congress people exercise near total power over their employees because they are not
accountable to their peers or their voters. They are protected by their financial donors, the
special Congressional 'judicial' system and by the mass media with a complicity of silence.
The entire electoral system is based on a hierarchy of power, where those on the top can
demand subordination and enforce their demands for sexual submission with threats of
retaliation against the victim or the victim's outraged family members. This mirrors a feudal
plantation system.
However, like sporadic peasant uprisings in the Middle Ages, some employees rise up, resist
and demand justice. It is common to see Congressional abusers turn to their office managers,
often female, to act as 'capos' to first threaten and then buy off the accuser – using US
taxpayer funds. This added abuse never touches the wallet of the abuser or the office enforcer.
Compensation is paid by the US Treasury. The social and financial status of the abusers and the
abusers' families remain intact as they look forward to lucrative future employment as
lobbyists.
This does not occur in isolation from the broader structure of class and power.
The sexual exploitation of workers in the Halls of the US Congress is part of the larger
socio-economic system. Elected officials, who abuse their office employees and interns, share
the same values with corporate and cultural bosses, who exploit their workers and subordinates.
At an even larger level, they share the same values and culture with the ImperialState as it
brutalizes and rapes independent nations and peoples.
The system of abuse and exploitation by the Congress and the corporate, cultural, academic,
religious and political elite depends on complicit intermediaries who frequently come from
upwardly mobile groups. The most abusive legislators will hire upwardly mobile women as public
relations officers and office managers to recruit victims and, when necessary, arrange
pay-offs. In the corporate sphere, CEOs frequently rely on former plant workers, trade union
leaders, women and minorities to serve as 'labor relations' experts to provide a progressive
façade in order to oust dissidents and enforce directives persecuting whistleblowers. On
a global scale, the political warlords work hand in glove with the mass media and humanitarian
interventionist NGO's to demonize independent voices and to glorify the military as they
slaughter resistance fighters, while claiming to champion gender and minority rights. Thus, the
US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was widely propagandized and celebrated as the
'liberation of Afghan women'.
The Congressional perverts have their own private, secret mission: to abuse staff, to
nurture the rich, enforce silence and approve legislation to make taxpayers pay the bill.
Let us hope that the current ' Me Too !' movement against workplace sexual abuse
will grow to include a broader movement against the neo-feudalism within politics, business,
and culture and lead to a political movement uniting workers in all fields.
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
"... By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that. ..."
"... ceteris paribus ..."
"... simultaneously ..."
"... private households ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... This is the night of the expanding man I take one last drag as I approach the stand I cried when I wrote this song Sue me if I play too long This brother is free I'll be what I want to be ..."
by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a terrific takedown
of the loanable funds theory, on which a ton of bad policy rests.
By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress,
income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the
Institute for New Economic Thinking website
Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that.
Introduction
Nine years after the Great Financial Crisis, U.S. output growth has not returned to its pre-recession trend, even after interest
rates hit the 'zero lower bound' (ZLB) and the unconventional monetary policy arsenal of the Federal Reserve has been all but exhausted.
It is widely feared that this insipid recovery reflects a 'new normal', characterized by "secular stagnation" which set in already
well before the global banking crisis of 2008 (Summers 2013, 2015).
This 'new normal' is characterized not just by this slowdown of aggregate economic growth, but also by greater income and wealth
inequalities and a growing polarization of employment and earnings into high-skill, high-wage and low-skill, low-wage jobs -- at
the expense of middle-class jobs (Temin 2017; Storm 2017). The slow recovery, heightened job insecurity and economic anxiety have
fueled a groundswell of popular discontent with the political establishment and made voters captive to Donald Trump's siren song
promising jobs and growth (
Ferguson and Page 2017 ).
What are the causes of secular stagnation? What are the solutions to revive growth and get the U.S. economy out of the doldrums?
If we go by four of the papers
commissioned by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at its recent symposium to explore these questions, one headline
conclusion stands out: the secular stagnation is caused by a heavy overdose of savings (relative to investment), which is caused
by higher retirement savings due to declining population growth and an ageing labour force (Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Lu
& Teulings 2017; Eggertson, Lancastre and Summers 2017), higher income inequality (Rachel & Smith 2017), and an inflow of precautionary
Asian savings (Rachel & Smith 2017). All these savings end up as deposits, or 'loanable funds' (LF), in commercial banks. In earlier
times, so the argument goes, banks would successfully channel these 'loanable funds' into productive firm investment -- by lowering
the nominal interest rate and thus inducing additional demand for investment loans.
But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when
they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in
order to invest. The result is inadequate investment and a shortage of aggregate demand in the short run, which lead to long-term
stagnation as long as the savings-investment imbalance persists. Summers (2015) regards a "chronic excess of saving over investment"
as "the essence of secular stagnation". Monetary policymakers at the Federal Reserve are in a fix, because they cannot lower the
interest rate further as it is stuck at the ZLB. Hence, forces of demography and ageing, higher inequality and thrifty Chinese savers
are putting the U.S. economy on a slow-moving turtle -- and not much can be done, it seems, to halt the resulting secular stagnation.
This is clearly a depressing conclusion, but it is also wrong.
To see this, we have to understand why there is a misplaced focus on the market for loanable funds that ignores the role of fiscal
policy that is plainly in front of us. In other words, we need to step back from the trees of dated models and see the whole forest
of our economy.
The Market for Loanable Funds
In the papers mentioned, commercial banks must first mobilise savings in order to have the loanable funds (LF) to originate new
(investment) loans or credit. Banks are therefore intermediaries between "savers" (those who provide the LF-supply) and "investors"
(firms which demand the LF). Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment
by new money. They only move it between savers and investors.
We apparently live in a non-monetary (corn) economy -- one that just exchanges a real good that everybody uses, like corn. Savings
(or LF-supply) are assumed to rise when the interest rate R goes up, whereas investment (or LF-demand) must decline when R increases.
This is the stuff of textbooks, as is illustrated by Greg Mankiw's (1997, p. 63) explanation:
In fact, saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply an demand. In this case, the 'good' is loanable funds,
and its 'price' is the interest rate. Saving is the supply of loans -- individuals lend their savings to investors, or they deposit
their saving in a bank that makes the loan for them. Investment is the demand for loanable funds -- investors borrow from the
public directly by selling bonds or indirectly by borrowing from banks. [ .] At the equilibrium interest rate, saving equals investment
and the supply of loans equals the demand.
But the loanable funds market also forms the heart of complicated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, beloved
by 'freshwater' and 'saltwater' economists alike (Woodford 2010), as should be clear from the commissioned INET papers as well. Figure
1 illustrates the loanable funds market in this scheme. The upward-sloping curve tells us that savings (or LF-supply) goes up as
the interest rate R increases. The downward-sloping curve shows us that investment (or LF-demand) declines if the cost of capital
(R) goes up. In the initial situation, the LF-market clears at a positive interest rate R0 > 0. Savings equal investment, which implies
that LF-supply matches LF-demand, and in this -- happy -- equilibrium outcome, the economy can grow along some steady-state path.
To see how we can get secular stagnation in such a loanable-funds world, we introduce a shock, say, an ageing population (a demographic
imbalance), a rise in (extreme) inequality, or an Asian savings glut, due to which the savings schedule shifts down. Equilibrium
in the new situation should occur at R1 which is negative. But this can't happen because of the ZLB: the nominal interest cannot
decline below zero. Hence R is stuck at the ZLB and savings exceed investment, or LF-supply > LF-demand. This is a disequilibrium
outcome which involves an over-supply of savings (relative to investment), in turn leading to depressed growth.
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence
upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple
diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant
Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.
The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015;
Taylor 2016
). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create
new money ex nihilo ), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with "loans" or "credit," wrong because
the empirical evidence in support of a "chronic excess of savings over investment" is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect
of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some "market-clearing" price
(the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption
that the two schedules -- the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve -- are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes
already pointed out).
Figure 1: The Loanable Funds Market: A Savings Glut Causing Secular Stagnation
I wish to briefly elaborate these six points. I understand that each of these criticisms is known and I entertain little hope
that that any of this will make people reconsider their approach, analysis, diagnosis and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important
that these criticisms are raised and not shoveled under the carpet. The problem of secular stagnation is simply too important to
be left mis-diagnosed.
First Problem: Loanable Funds Supply and Demand Are Not Independent Functions
Let me start with the point that the LF-supply and LF-demand curve are not two independent schedules. Figure 1 presents savings
and investment as functions of only the interest rate R, while keeping all other variables unchanged. The problem is that the
ceteris paribus assumption does not hold in this case. The reason is that savings and investment are both affected by, and at
the same time determined by, changes in income and (changes in) income distribution. To see how this works, let us assume that the
average propensity to save rises in response to the demographic imbalance and ageing. As a result, consumption and aggregate demand
go down. Rational firms, expecting future income to decline, will postpone or cancel planned investment projects and investment declines
(due to the negative income effect and for a given interest rate R0). This means that LF-demand curve in Figure 1 must shift downward
in response to the increased savings. The exact point was made by Keynes (1936, p. 179):
The classical theory of the rate of interest [the loanable funds theory] seems to suppose that, if the demand curve for capital
shifts or if the curve relating the rate of interest to the amounts saved out of a given income shifts or if both these curves
shift, the new rate of interest will be given by the point of intersection of the new positions of the two curves. But this is
a nonsense theory. For the assumption that income is constant is inconsistent with the assumption that these two curves can shift
independently of one another. If either of them shift, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism
based on the assumption of a given income breaks down In truth, the classical theory has not been alive to the relevance of changes
in the level of income or to the possibility of the level of income being actually a function of the rate of the investment.
Let me try to illustrate this using Figure 2. Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) rise in the average propensity to save.
In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down, but because (expected) income declines, the LF-demand schedule shifts downward as well.
The outcome could well be that there is no change in equilibrium savings and equilibrium investment. The only change is that the
'natural' interest is now R1 and equal to the ZLB. Figure 2 is, in fact, consistent with the empirical analysis (and their Figure
of global savings and investment) of Rachel & Smith. Let me be clear: Figure 2 is not intended to suggest that the loanable funds
market is useful and theoretically correct. The point I am trying to make is that income changes and autonomous demand changes are
much bigger drivers of both investment and saving decisions than the interest rate. Market clearing happens here -- as Keynes was
arguing -- because the level of economic activity and income adjust, not because of interest-rate adjustment.
Figure 2: The Loanable Funds Market: Shifts in Both Schedules
Second Problem: Savings Do Not Fund Investment, Credit Does
The loanable funds doctrine wrongly assumes that commercial bank lending is constrained by the prior availability of loanable
funds or savings. The simple point in response is that, in real life, modern banks are not just intermediaries between 'savers' and
'investors', pushing around already-existing money, but are money creating institutions. Banks create new money ex nihilo
, i.e. without prior mobilisation of savings. This is illustrated by Werner's (2014) case study of the money creation process
by one individual commercial bank. What this means is that banks do pre-finance investment, as was noted by Schumpeter early
on and later by Keynes (1939), Kaldor (1989), Kalecki, and numerous other economists. It is for this reason that Joseph Schumpeter
(1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit ( ex nihilo
) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the
name of society as it were, to form them." Nicholas Kaldor (1989, p. 179) hit the nail on its head when he wrote that "[C]redit money
has no 'supply function' in the production sense (since its costs of production are insignificant if not actually zero); it comes
into existence as a result of bank lending and is extinguished through the repayment of bank loans. At any one time the volume of
bank lending or its rate of expansion is limited only by the availability of credit-worthy borrowers." Kaldor had earlier expressed
his views on the endogeneity of money in his evidence to the Radcliffe Committee on the Workings of the Monetary System, whose report
(1959) was strongly influenced by Kaldor's argumentation. Or take Lord Adair Turner (2016, pp. 57) to whom the loanable-funds approach
is 98% fictional, as he writes:
Read an undergraduate textbook of economics, or advanced academic papers on financial intermediation, and if they describe
banks at all, it is usually as follows: "banks take deposits from households and lend money to businesses, allocating capital
between alternative capital investment possibilities." But as a description of what modern banks do, this account is largely fictional,
and it fails to capture their essential role and implications. [ ] Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ]
The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money
takes this form .
We therefore don't need savings to make possible investment -- or, in contrast to the Protestant Ethic, banks allow us to have
'gratification' even if we have not been 'thrifty' and austere, as long as there are slack resources in the economy.
It is by no means a secret that commercial banks create new money. As the Bank of England (2007) writes, "When bank make loans
they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed" (Berry et al. 2007, p. 377). Or consider the following statement
from the Deutsche Bundesbank (2009): "The commercial banks can create money themselves ." Across the board, central bank economists,
including economists working at the Bank for International Settlements (Borio and Disyatat 2011), have rejected the loanable funds
model as a wrong description of how the financial system actually works (see McLeay et al . 2014a, 2014b; Jakab and Kumhof
2015). And the Deutsche Bundesbank (2017) leaves no doubt as to how the banking system works and money is created in actually-existing
capitalism, stating that the ability of banks to originate loans does not depend on the prior availability of saving deposits. Bank
of England economists Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhoff (2015) reject the loanable-funds approach in favour of a model with money-creating
banks. In their model (as in reality), banks pre-finance investment; investment creates incomes; people save out of their incomes;
and at the end of the day, ex-post savings equal investment. This is what Jakab and Kumhoff (2015) conclude:
" . if the loan is for physical investment purposes, this new lending and money is what triggers investment and therefore,
by the national accounts identity of saving and investment (for closed economies), saving. Saving is therefore a consequence,
not a cause, of such lending. Saving does not finance investment, financing does. To argue otherwise confuses the respective macroeconomic
roles of resources (saving) and debt-based money (financing)."
Savings are a consequence of credit-financed investment (rather than a prior condition) -- and we cannot draw
a savings-investment cross as in Figure 1, as if the two curves are independent. They are not. There exists therefore no
'loanable funds market' in which scarce savings constrain (through interest rate adjustments) the demand for investment loans. Highlighting
the loanable funds fallacy, Keynes wrote in "The Process of Capital Formation" (1939):
"Increased investment will always be accompanied by increased saving, but it can never be preceded by it. Dishoarding and credit
expansion provides not an alternative to increased saving, but a necessary preparation for it. It is the parent, not the twin,
of increased saving."
This makes it all the more remarkable that some of the authors of the commissioned conference papers continue to frame their analysis
in terms of the discredited loanable funds market which wrongly assumes that savings have an existence of their own -- separate from
investment, the level of economic activity and the distribution of incomes.
Third Problem: The Interest Rate Is a Monetary Policy Instrument, Not a Market-Clearing Price
In loanable funds theory, the interest rate is a market price, determined by LF-supply and LF-demand (as in Figure 1). In reality,
central bankers use the interest rate as their principal policy instrument (Storm and Naastepad 2012). It takes effort and a considerable
amount of sophistry to match the loanable funds theory and the usage of the interest rate as a policy instrument. However, once one
acknowledges the empirical fact that commercial banks create money ex nihilo , which means money supply is endogenous, the
model of an interest-rate clearing loanable funds market becomes untenable. Or as Bank of England economists Jakab and Kumhof (2015)
argue:
modern central banks target interest rates, and are committed to supplying as many reserves (and cash) as banks demand at that
rate, in order to safeguard financial stability. The quantity of reserves is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of lending
and money creation. This view concerning central bank reserves [ ] has been repeatedly described in publications of the world's
leading central banks.
What this means is that the interest rate may well be at the ZLB, but this is not caused by a savings glut in the loanable funds
market, but the result of a deliberate policy decision by the Federal Reserve -- in an attempt to revive sluggish demand in a context
of stagnation, subdued wage growth, weak or no inflation, substantial hidden un- and underemployment, and actual recorded unemployment
being (much) higher than the NAIRU (see Storm and Naastepad 2012). Seen this way, the savings glut is the symptom (or
consequence ) of an aggregate demand shortage which has its roots in the permanent suppression of wage growth (relative
to labour productivity growth), the falling share of wages in income, the rising inequalities of income and wealth (Taylor 2017)
as well as the financialization of corporations (Lazonick 2017) and the economy as a whole (Storm 2018). It is not the cause of the
secular stagnation -- unlike in the loanable funds models.
Fourth Problem: The Manifest Absence of Finance and Financial Markets
What the various commissioned conference papers do not acknowledge is that the increase in savings (mostly due to heightened inequality
and financialization) is not channeled into higher real-economy investment, but is actually channeled into more lucrative financial
(derivative) markets. Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity and IMF economists
have documented the growth of global institutional cash pools, now worth $5 to 6 trillion and managed by asset or money managers
in the shadow banking system (Pozsar 2011; Pozsar and Singh 2011; Pozsar 2015). Today's global economy is suffering from an unprecedented
"liquidity preference" -- with the cash safely "parked" in short-term (over-collateralized lending deals in the repo-market. The
liquidity is used to earn a quick buck in all kinds of OTC derivatives trading, including forex swaps, options and interest rate
swaps. The global savings glut is the same thing as the global overabundance of liquidity (partying around in financial markets)
and also the same thing as the global demand shortage -- that is: the lack of investment in real economic activity, R&D and innovation.
The low interest rate is important in this context, because it has dramatically lowered the opportunity cost of holding cash --
thus encouraging (financial) firms, the rentiers and the super-rich to hold on to their liquidity and make (quick and relatively
safe and high) returns in financial markets and exotic financial instruments. Added to this, we have to acknowledge the fact that
highly-leveraged firms are paying out most of their profits to shareholders as dividends or using it to buy back shares (Lazonick
2017). This has turned out to be damaging to real investment and innovation, and it has added further fuel to financialization (Epstein
2018; Storm 2018). If anything, firms have stopped using their savings (or retained profits) to finance their investments which are
now financed by bank loans and higher leverage. If we acknowledge these roles of finance and financial markets, then we can begin
to understand why investment is depressed and why there is an aggregate demand shortage. More than two decades of financial deregulation
have created a rentiers' delight, a capitalism without 'compulsions' on financial investors, banks, and the property-owning class
which in practice has led to 'capitalism for the 99%' and 'socialism for the 1%' (Palma 2009; Epstein 2018) For authentic Keynesians,
this financialized system is the exact opposite of Keynes' advice to go for the euthanasia of the rentiers ( i.e. design
policies to reduce the excess liquidity).
Fifth Problem: Confusing Savings with "Loans," or Stocks with Flows
"I have found out what economics is,' Michał Kalecki once told Joan Robinson, "it is the science of confusing stocks with flows."
If anything, Kalecki's comment applies to the loanable funds model. In the loanable fund universe, as Mankiw writes and as most commissioned
conference papers argue, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand at some equilibrium interest rate. But
savings and investment are flow variables, whereas the supply of loans and the demand for loans are stock variables.
Simply equating these flows to the corresponding stocks is not considered good practice in stock-flow-consistent macro-economic modelling.
It is incongruous, because even if we assume that the interest rate does clear "the stock of loan supply" and "the stock of loan
demand", there is no reason why the same interest rate would simultaneously balance savings ( i.e. the increase
in loan supply) and investment ( i.e. the increase in loan demand). So what is the theoretical rationale of assuming that
some interest rate is clearing the loanable funds market (which is defined in terms of flows )?
To illustrate the difference between stocks and flows: the stock of U.S. loans equals around 350% of U.S. GDP (if one includes
debts of financial firms), while gross savings amount to 17% of U.S. GDP. Lance Taylor (2016) presents the basic macroeconomic flows
and stocks for the U.S. economy to show how and why loanable funds macro models do not fit the data -- by a big margin. No interest
rate adjustment mechanism is strong enough to bring about this (ex-post) balance in terms of flows , because the interest
rate determination is overwhelmed by changes in loan supply and demand stocks . What is more, and as stated before, we don't
actually use 'savings' to fund 'investment'. Firms do not use retained profits (or corporate savings) to finance their investment,
but in actual fact disgorge the cash to shareholders (Lazonick 2017). They finance their investment by bank loans (which is newly
minted money). Households use their (accumulated) savings to buy bonds in the secondary market or any other existing asset. In that
case, the savings do not go to funding new investment -- but are merely used to re-arrange the composition of the financial portfolio
of the savers.
Final Problem: The Evidence of a Chronic Excess of Savings Over Investment is Missing
If Summers claims that there is a "chronic excess of savings over investment," what he means is that ex-ante savings are larger
than ex-ante investment. This is a difficult proposition to empirically falsify, because we only have ex-post (national accounting)
data on savings and investment which presume the two variables are equal. However, what we can do is consider data on (global) gross
and net savings rates (as a proportion of GDP) to see if the propensity to save has increased. This is what Bofinger and Ries (2017)
did and they find that global saving rates of private households have declined dramatically since the 1980s. This means,
they write, that one can rule out 'excess savings' due to demographic factors (as per Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017;
Eggertsson, Lancastre & Summers 2017; Rachel & Smith 2017; and Lu & Teulings 2017). While the average saving propensity of household
has declined, the aggregate propensity to save has basically stayed the same during the period 1985-2014. This is shown in Figure
3 (reproduced from Bofinger and Reis 2017) which plots the ratio of global gross savings (or global gross investment) to GDP against
the world real interest rate during 1985-2014. A similar figure can be found in the paper by Rachel and Smith (2017). What can be
seen is that while there has been no secular rise in the average global propensity to save, there has been a secular decline in interest
rates. This drop in interest rates to the ZLB is not caused by a savings glut, nor by a financing glut, but is the outcome of the
deliberate decisions of central banks to lower the policy rate in the face of stagnating economies, put on a 'slow-moving turtle'
by a structural lack of aggregate demand which -- as argued by Storm and Naastepad (2012) and Storm (2017) -- is largely due to misconceived
macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation.
Saving/Investment Equilibria and World Real Interest Rate, 1985-2014 Source: Bofinger and Reis (2017), Figure
1(a).
To understand the mechanisms underlying Figure 3, let us consider Figure 4 which plots investment demand as a negative function
of the interest rate. In the 'old situation', investment demand is high at a (relatively) high rate of interest (R0); this corresponds
to the data points for the period 1985-1995 in Figure 3. But then misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing
wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation began to depress aggregate demand and investment -- and as a result,
the investment demand schedule starts to shift down and to become more steeply downward-sloping at the same time. In response to
the growth slowdown (and weakening inflationary pressure), central banks reduce R -- but without any success in raising the gross
investment rate. This process continues until the interest rate hits the ZLB while investment has become practically interest-rate
insensitive, as investment is now overwhelmingly determined by pessimistic profit expectations; this is indicated by the new investment
schedule (in red). That the economy is now stuck at the ZLB is not caused by a "chronic excess of savings" but rather by a chronic
shortage of aggregate demand -- a shortage created by decades of wage growth moderation, labour market flexibilization, and heightened
job insecurity as well as the financialization of corporations and the economy at large (Storm 2018).
Figure 4: Secular Stagnation As a Crisis of Weak Investment Demand
Conclusions
The consensus in the literature and in the commissioned conference papers that the global decline in real interest rates is caused
by a higher propensity to save, above all due to demographic reasons, is wrong in terms of underlying theory and evidence base. The
decline in interest rates is the monetary policy response to stalling investment and growth, both caused by a shortage of global
demand. However, the low interest rates are unable to revive growth and halt the secular stagnation, because there is little reason
for firms to expand productive capacity in the face of the persistent aggregate demand shortage. Unless we revive demand, for example
through debt-financed fiscal stimulus or a drastic and permanent progressive redistribution of income and wealth in favour of lower-income
groups (Taylor 2017), there is no escape from secular stagnation. The narrow focus on the ZLB and powerless monetary policy within
the framing of a loanable-funds financial system blocks out serious macroeconomic policy debate on how to revive aggregate demand
in a sustainable manner. It will keep the U.S. economy on the slow-moving turtle -- not because policymakers cannot do anything about
it, but we choose to do so. The economic, social and political damage, fully self-inflicted, is going to be of historic proportions.
It is not a secret that the loanable funds approach is fallacious (Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). While academic
economists continue to refine their Ptolemaic model of a loanable-funds market, central bank economists have moved on -- and are
now exploring the scope of and limitations to monetary policymaking in a monetary economy. Keynes famously wrote that "Practical
men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." In
2017, things seem to happen the other way around: academic economists who believe themselves to be free thinkers are caught in the
stale theorizing of a century past. The puzzle is, as Lance Taylor (2016, p. 15) concludes "why [New Keynesian economists] revert
to Wicksell on loanable funds and the natural rate while ignoring Keynes's innovations. Maybe, as [Keynes] said in the preface to
the General Theory, "'The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones ..' (p. viii)"
Due to our inability to free ourselves from the discredited loanable funds doctrine, we have lost the forest for the trees. We
cannot see that the solution to the real problem underlying secular stagnation (a structural shortage of aggregate demand) is by
no means difficult: use fiscal policy -- a package of spending on infrastructure, green energy systems, public transportation and
public services, and progressive income taxation -- and raise (median) wages. The stagnation will soon be over, relegating all the
scholastic talk about the ZLB to the dustbin of a Christmas past.
"Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that."
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"? Or is Keynes so out of favor that this is outre
thinking?
The point is that the "saving glut" is caused bi unequal distribution of income, so it's a good thing that the "shortage of
aggregate demand" is stressed, but still it's just two names for the same thing.
In the end the "money creation" is needed because there is not a "money circulation", IMO.
Putting money into the broadest possible distribution and circulation is the key. It could be done with existing money through
taxation or with new money through the federal fiscal lever.
Given the "Tax Reform" just passed, odds on the first option look vanishingly long. The second option is what the elites do
whenever they want something, normally a war or tax cut. If they want a robust economy, eventually they will pull the fiscal lever.
Feudalism, however, may look better to our depraved current elite crop than any kind of broadly robust economy.
There was a link to an article yesterday called "I write because I hate" that described how incorrect and even dangerous metaphors
can be when it comes to understanding the world. Yours is a case in point.
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"
I'm not sure I entirely understand your complaint, but at a first glance a savings glut is one kind of demand shortage, but
not every kind of demand shortage can reasonably be called a savings glut. In one situation you have plenty of resource but no
use for it other than possible future use (savings glut -- you have everything you need so cease purchasing) and in another situation
you have insufficient resource (demand shortage -- you cease purchasing because you can't afford to purchase) but no savings glut.
You don't even have the resources you need for today, never mind saving for tomorrow.
Aye, that's exactly how I understand it, so it is not exactly a chicken-or-the-egg conflation to try to distinguish a savings
glut from a lack of demand.
You seem to have missed the point. The problem is wealth distribution. Mainstream economists don't distinguish who has the
savings in their simplistic models. When the rich already have a widget in every room of their mansion, they are not going to
buy more widgets no matter how low the price of widgets sink. And when the poor have no money, they will not be able to buy the
widgets no matter how much they want them. Demand is not just a function of price. To increase demand, we need a more equitable
form of wealth distribution.
One major difference, according to the author, is that the lack of aggregate demand exists, while the savings glut does not.
The fact of companies sitting on liquidity, is detached from investment, for which they borrow. That investment is lacking because
they do not see good investments, because of a lack of aggregate demand. if they did invest, it would not be constrained
by their 'savings'.
"But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even
when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow
more in order to invest."
That needs some explanation. Banks are not offering US businesses free money (excerpt briefly during the Crash). BBB bonds
yields are aprox 4.3% -- and most businesses cannot borrow at that rate (excerpt when posting collateral).
For comparison over long time horizons, the real (ex-CPI) BBB corporate bond rate is 2.5% to 3% -- in the middle of its range
from 1952-1980.
We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending.
But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full
employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.
Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The
social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would
grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits
would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage
rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices,
and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more
appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from
their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.
In other words, one potential reason for business to oppose any efforts at addressing the problem is that the people would
have more bargaining power. The elite are not after absolute wealth or power, but relative power over the rest of us.
Imagine for example if the alternative was passed say some form of social democracy with full employment and MMT policy.
This would undermine in their view their ability to dominate over the rest of us. Now they may arguably be richer (ex: we might
see more money for productive parts of society like say, disease research), but they are willing to give that up for dominating
us. That is what we are up against.
If what you say is true (re social democracy + MMT policies), how then to consider for even one second the further existence
of a business cadre dedicated to upending such an agreement? We always theorize as if an actual resistance to "our" policies will
melt away with the displacement of elite political control. I remember Chile and the "strikes" called to bring down Allende.
The innocence of our imaginations is not only disturbing, but dangerous. Once power is gained and capital has been put in its
place, the fight begins right there, anew. Unless we wish to fall into Stalinist methods of "resolution", consideration for alternate
methods of economic control, and an anticipation of backlash, are in demand if the "people" are to prevail.
In my experience as a union organizer and negotiator the opposition by many employers to unions is not particularily because
of money, but because of power and the erosion of the employer's grip of it by the collective action of workers. Many times in
my experience employers have spent a boatload more money on fighting workers and hiring union-busting attorneys than whatever
wage and benefit increase is being proposed. These employers are acting from their political self-interest rather than the narrow
economic self-interest that is commonly assumed.
Great comments -- the motivation behind the ideas is a need for power and control.
You can look at the first 20 years of the Cold War as a domestic experiment in social control: incomes were allowed to rise
for most people, and inequality was moderated in the interest of politically consolidating the country to support arming and fighting
the war.
By the early 70s our handlers -- as shown in the Powell Memo, say -- had tired of the experiment. With more income, free time,
and education, women, students, non-white people, and the newly prosperous working class were entering into contention on every
terrain imaginable -- and that had to reduced to a manageable level. So they "leaned-out the mix", reduced income for most people,
and bumped up the level of indebtedness and indoctrination.
Now the fuel-air mix is so lean that the engine is starting to miss (for example, the Trump election and the Sanders challenge
to the Dem elite). But it looks like they have no other idea but to double-down on austerity. I guess they assume they can maintain
global financial and military hegemony on the backs of a sick, unfit, indebted, and politically fractious population -- an iffy
proposition. No wonder they seem desperate.
The Trump/Republican tax law tells us (if we needed another message) that the link between economic policy and economic theory
is so weak as the bring into question the point of theorizing in the first place, apart, of course, from convincing (semi)-smart
but fearful people to remain timid in the face of powerful lunacy. Government spending to replace worn out capital, to satisfy
basic material needs of the population, and to underwrite investment in an environmental and educational future worth creating
is, OBVIOUSLY, a no-no to Wall Street, war profiteers, and the large population of yes-men and women who promote fear among the
middle class. We should spend less time contesting economic thinking that is nonsense. Instead why not spend time proposing and
explaining fairly obvious fiscal strategies that will promote a better society, as well as the time that will be needed to defend
these life-affirming proposals against the scholastic nonsense that our saltwater and freshwater scaredy-cat friends will put
out every day to explain why what we propose will wreck Civilization. Let's go on the offense for a change.
precisely, but for the forementioned scholastic nonsense of our salty and fresh feline friends, one would need a salient and
orchestrated defense, as to why such meddling with traditional economic trajectories, will mean that: by foregoing my 'short sided
2018 increase in my personal deduction', will I actually allow myself to feel benign about the sagging state of civilization,
that those 'cats of all breeds', have so eloquently perpetuated upon a 'generation of our peers'.
calling 'message central', the 'greater good awaits'. Yes
I still can't get my head around the fact that these models can persist in the economics literature whilst everyone knows they
are based on flawed assumptions. In science these would quickly end up as part of some distant history. Someone would publish
another model, and slowly everyone would start working with it if it had strong explanatory power. Imagine the grief that climate
modellers would get if theirs models were so poorly grounded.
Thank you for this post. It was as good as Michael Hudson and all the clear thinkers you post for us. Since we got rid of Greenspan
(who admitted that interest rates had no effect on the economy but still freaked out about inflaltion), Bernanke and then Yellen
have had better instincts – not straightforward, but better. If central banks know the loanable funds theory to be nonsense, the
battle is mostly won. MMT will be the logical next step. Public spending/infrastructure is just good grassroots policy that serve
everyone. Even dithering goofballs like Larry Summers. And, as implied above, public spending takes care of the always ignored
problem of private debt levels which suck productive spending and investment out of the economy, because unemployment. It's hard
to believe that academics have been so wrong-headed for so long without any evidence for their claims. Steve Keen's premise, that
these academics ignore both the existence of private debt and the importance of dwindling energy sources is also addressed above.
Storm's point – also made by both old hands and new MMT – that there is not a problem with inflation (too much) if there are slack
resources seems to have morphed into an ossified rule whereby some inflexible academics see slack resources as scarce resources.
What is slack is always a political definition. What is slack today is a filthy environment; there is a great surplus of it. Enormously
slack. That's the good news.
Globalization is a disaster wherever you care to look.
Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity . . .
A better example is Apple, with it's roughly 1/4 trillion dollar cash hoard, beaten out of their Chinese work force in collusion
of the Chinese elite. With wages crushed here and there, because they don't want to pay anyone anything anywhere, where will demand
come from? The Chinese peasant slaving away on an Apple farm has a few square feet of living space, like a broiler chicken in
a Tyson cage so where is she going to put the new furniture she can't afford?
Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies
is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .
The banks are the MMT practicing intermediary between the federal government and the peasants.
So much goodness, don't know where to start. It's a long post. It's my day (singular) off. I'm going long. Deacon Blues* applies.
This:
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong
influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible
form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift'
and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path
to bliss.
Now we're talking. This puts the doctrine in the context of its parent beliefs.
The way I see it, beliefs:economics as operating system:application as mythology:religion. So shorter Storm: The LFF is a BS
application for a BS OS.
Been dawning on me lately how neoliberalism is the spawn of a degenerate parent belief system, too. I was even thinking of
Weber just the other day.
By speaking in apparently objective, pragmatic, "realistic" terms, public figures are notorious for "dog-whistling" their occult
beliefs in terms their congregations hear loud and clear. When Her Royal Clinton's even more notoriously damned to hell half the
population as "deplorables," she tipped her hand. The obscure term, ephors, is very instructive here.
To refesh the readers memory, "Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy'
-- someone who by creating credit (ex nihilo) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of
new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them."
Not so fast, though. Who were the original ephors?
Herodotus claimed that the institution was created by Lycurgus, while Plutarch considers it a later institution. It may
have arisen from the need for governors while the kings were leading armies in battle. The ephors were elected by the popular
assembly, and all citizens were eligible for election. They were forbidden to be reelected. They provided a balance for the
two kings, who rarely cooperated with each other. Plato called them tyrants who ran Sparta as despots, while the kings were
little more than generals. Up to two ephors would accompany a king on extended military campaigns as a sign of control, and
they held the authority to declare war during some periods in Spartan history.[2]
According to Plutarch,[3] every autumn, at the crypteia, the ephors would pro forma declare war on the helot population
so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt.[4] This was done to keep the large helot population
in check.
The ephors did not have to kneel down before the Kings of Sparta and were held in high esteem by the citizens, because of
the importance of their powers and because of the holy role they earned throughout their functions.
Ain't that something. We don't call it "class war" for nothing. More on the crypteia:
The Crypteia or Krypteia (Greek: κρυπτεία krupteía from κρυπτός kruptós, "hidden, secret things") was an ancient Spartan
state institution involving young Spartan men. Its goal and nature are still a matter of discussion and debate among historians,
but some scholars (Wallon) consider the Krypteia to be a kind of secret police and state security force organized by the ruling
classes of Sparta, whose purpose was to terrorize the servile helot population. Others (Köchly, Wachsmuth) believe it to be
a form of military training, similar to the Athenian ephebia.
So Schumpeter's metaphor is way too apt for comfort. Gets right under my skin.
For a modern equivalent of the pro forma declaration of civil war, I'm thinking "election cycle." Hippie-punching and
all that goes a long way back, eh?
Let's cut to the chase: what's all this talk of econ as religion telling us? ISTM arguing with neoliberals as they frame the
debate is like arguing with theologians in their terms. My learning psych professor, Robert Bolles, regarding the dismantling
of ascendant BS models, always said, you don't take down an enormous tree leaf by leaf, you go where it meets the ground. Where
does neoliberalism meet the ground? And its parent belief system?
Neoliberalism is so poorly grounded, it's shorting out all over the place. This could be easier than it looks. Storm's argument
is compelling (at least to this newbie). What are its other weakest links? (Not being rhetorical here. I really don't know. A
little help?)
Speaking of Weber, one of the major factors in the Reformation was the utter failure of the Catholic church to be able to produce
a valid calendar
. The trouble is of course, in their mythos, you have to perform the proper rituals at the proper time and often in the proper
place, or you will fry in hell forever and ever amen.
Obviously, then, the calculation of the equinox assumed considerable and understandable importance. If the equinox was wrong,
then Easter was celebrated on the wrong day and the placement of most of the other observances -- such as the starts of Lent
and Pentecost -- would also be in error.
As the Julian calendar was far from perfect, errors did indeed begin to creep into the keeping of time. Because of the inherent
imprecision of the calendar, the calculated year was too long by 11 minutes and 14 seconds. The problem only grew worse with
each passing year as the equinox slipped backwards one full day on the calendar every 130 years. For example, at the time of
its introduction, the Julian calendar placed the equinox on March 25. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the equinox
had fallen back to March 21. By 1500, the equinox had shifted by 10 days.
The 10 days were of increasing importance also to navigation and agriculture, causing severe problems for sailors, merchants,
and farmers whose livelihood depended upon precise measurements of time and the seasons. At the same time, throughout the Middle
Ages, the use of the Julian calendar brought with it many local variations and peculiarities that are the constant source of
frustration to historians. For example, many medieval ecclesiastical records, financial transactions, and the counting of dates
from the feast days of saints did not adhere to the standard Julian calendar but reflected local adjustments. Not surprisingly,
confusion was the result.
The Church Saves Time
[Doncha just love that succinct bit of myth-making? smh]
The Church was aware of the inaccuracy, and by the end of the 15th century there was widespread agreement among Church leaders
that not celebrating Easter on the right day -- the most important and most solemn event on the calendar -- was a scandal.
A functioning mythology tells one how to be human right now. The Catholic church couldn't even tell people what date it was,
putting not just ephemeral souls in peril should one die, even more of a daily dread in those days, but lives and property were
increasingly at risk.
ISTM we're in an analogous situation. Our two high holies, Wall Street and Washington, DC, are increasingly irrelevant to us
helots. They're of no use to us in ordering our daily lives. In fact, they've becoming openly hostile, dropping any pretense of
governing for the common good, and I'm not referring only to Trump, eg, whatever happened to habeas corpus ? "If you like
your health plan, you can keep it." The betrayals come fast and furious, too fast to keep up.
Others are rejecting science. A schism here, a schism there, pretty soon it all cracks up one day "outta nowhere." And I do
mean "one day."
Moving right along, let's look at "the virtue of thrift."
In the formative years of United States history, prominent thinkers such as Ben Franklin promoted a "thrift ethic" that
encouraged hard work, frugal spending on self and generous giving to charity, he asserted, maintaining "thrift" was simply
the secular term for the religious stewardship principle . And institutions developed to support that ethic, he noted.
That's what I'm saying: secular institutions are the operationalizations, the applications, of belief systems, and further,
we can study them instead of just saying "religion = bad = no further analysis required" and then dismissing it all out of hand.
As with LF-supply and LF-demand, secular and sectarian are not the independent variables they're made out to be, as argued
so well by Cook & Ferguson right here on NC in The
Real Economic Consequences of Martin Luther , eg, "[Henry VIII] did not abolish the papacy so much as take the pope's place."
Same goes for today, IMNSHO: Our "secular" leaders are sectarian high priests in mufti.
The Baptist article also goes on to say what the flock people should do: ignore Wall St. and DC. Unsuprisingly, it's also chock
full of punching downwards and victim-blaming. Payday lending and lotteries are to blame, they say. People just need to be more
thrifty , which apparently means, impoverish yourself for the betterment of your betters. Or else.
When HRC damned half of us to Hell, she was dog-whistling loud and clear in a tradition going at least as far back as the wars
of the ephors on the helots. When the high priests of our high holy temples of finance tell us we need more austerity, although
they speak in terms apparently objective and especially dispassionate, it's nothing but the failed preachings of the failed priests
of a failed church.
Looked at as comparative mythology, and speaking empirically as well (much obliged to the present author and our hosts, sincerely)
neoliberalism is no way of being human.
Sure, us nerds get that. But wonky discussions don't move people. The execrable Mario Cuomo is credited with saying, "You campaign
in poetry, you govern in prose," and I think it's profoundly true. Telling my friends we've debunked the Loanable Funds Fallacy
will get me nowhere.
Oy vey. The immense satisfaction I had been feeling, of seeing through neoliberalism all the way to its core, sure was short
lived. Now I need to know what MMT says about being human. This is what happens when you start thinking in words, you know. It
never ends!
I've heard Steve Keen's writing won't be much help in popularizing MMT in time. Who's a witty MMTer? Who can express its way
of being human in one-liners? Who's punchy?
(Administrivia: "Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) *rise* in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply
curve shifts down ." Shouldn't that be "drop"?)
* This is the night of the expanding man
I take one last drag as I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be
Very interesting rant, Knowbuddhau. Imo all we have to do is get over gold. It made sense before the days of sovereign fiat
that you saved your coins before you spent them. How else? But fiat is the essential spirit of money while gold was/is a craze.
And the Neoliberals are unenlightened just like the Neocons against whom they pretend to react. But they are reactionaries regardless.
That's their problem. All reaction, no action. When Storm refers to Kalecki above saying the original sin of economics was confusing
stocks with flows, I take it to mean confusing fiat with gold in a sense. Once upon a time a store of value (a pouch full of gold
coins) was the same thing as a medium of exchange. Not any more. Fiat is the only mechanism, spent in advance to promote social
well being, that can create an "economy" in this world of zillions of people.
Isn't a bit of an irony that the academic papers being debunked here were commissioned by the Institute for *New* Economic
Thinking ? Sad to see its also been corrupted by the neoliberal virus (political Ebola).
The author writes about the fuctional LF paradigm: "Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot
pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors." -- Note that that narrative doesn't
even make sense *within* the loanable-funds model, because with fractional reserve banking, even if banks were required to loan
against pre-existing deposits, they could amplify each dollar of same into multiple units of newly-created credit money. The fact
that what really happens goes even further and entirely omits the need for pre-existing funds from the banks' monetary legerdemain
is the reason for my pet term for the "loans create deposits" reality: "fictional reserve banking."
Aggregate demand increases investment only to the extant that it increases profitable opportunities. If costs remain constant,
then obviously an increase in demand increases profitability. But an increase in wages doesn't merely increase aggregate demand,
it also increases aggregate costs because that's what a wage is to a firm. If aggregate wages were boosted by $1 trillion, consumption
will be boosted by less than 100% of that (workers will save some of their increased income) while firms will have to pay the
full $1 trillion in increased wages if they are to employ the workers. So how is increasing wages supposed to increase profitability
and investment? It seems like it would do the opposite.
We really need to look more at profit. The aggregate profit rate is determined by the cost of the total capital employed in
relation to the output. If the costs rise faster than productivity growth, then profitability falls. How do aggregate costs rise?
By capital accumulation, by an increase in savings and investment. Thus, it would seem that stagnation can only be reached if
too much capital has been accumulated without a corresponding increase in productivity. This hypothesis doesn't rely on the loanable
funds theory (it doesn't matter whether the money exists before it is spent), but it is more similar to the savings glut explanation
because it is the accumulation of capital that leads to the fall in profitability. The suppression of wages is an effect, an attempt
to create profitable opportunities when there are none.
Your model is correct when you limit yourself to the variables in your model. Real life economies are complex, dynamic interactions
of many variables. At different times some variable become more important than others.
I think your variable, capital accumulation, is itself a complicated mix of many variables. Sometimes the cost of "capital
accumulation" may be controlling, and sometimes not. It also depends on which variables within capital accumulation are having
the most impact.
I think one of the major problems of the theory of supply and demand is that it may be true as a static model (all other things
being equal), but the economy (and life) are not static. Unless you can take dynamic effects into account, then this static or
even quasi-static model will just not represent what actually happens. This is just another way of saying what this article says.
Over time, the supply curve and the demand curve interact. There is hardly, if any, point in time when all other things aren't
changing.
In my world of simulating the behavior of integrated circuits, the problem involves non-linear differential equations, not
just non-linear algebraic equations.
Here is another problem. " by the national accounts[,] identity of saving and investment (for closed economies),"
Accounting is also a static snapshot of a dynamic system. A bank creates a loan payable in let's say 30 years. The spending
occurs immediately. In accounting terms these two items balance. However, on impact on the economy, they do not balance. Why else
would capitalism have noticed the value of buy now, pay later?
This is no longer a chicken and egg problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In real life, there are lots of chickens
and lots of eggs. Which came first is irrelevant. Chickens create eggs and eggs create chickens.
Models are a simplification of reality. They apply best when the things that were simplified away don't matter much. They fail
when the things that were simplified away become important. So, when does the loanable funds model apply?
IMHO, the loanable funds model applies when there is a run on the bank. When the fractional reserve banking system is running
smoothly, the loanable funds model is irrelevant. That's why banks have reserves and monetary systems have central reserve banks.
These reserve systems let us ignore loanable funds models.
The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from
the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in
case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials
against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose
legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words
did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens,
especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly
political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly
persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
The Washington Post and a number
of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA
Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post
headlined a front page featured article with
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it
was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New
York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the
British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at
least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan
unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and
elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.
But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just
speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what
Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his
campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn
such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those
individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of
others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they
do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the
case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he
knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the
Americans and British, do so aggressively.
At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in
my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved
in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents
voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.
It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented
meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the
purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do
things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and
acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things
about today's CIA
Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the
Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if
they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in
question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to
open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia
was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense.
In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly
everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the
outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia
was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has
been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly
everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly
lacking in any actual evidence.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just
one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its
front page with a piece entitled Top
Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on
anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American
spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and
political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his
advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly
focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had
established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.
The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials
actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there
is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan
and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the
phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an
observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous
sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers
do?
It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United
States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places
including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point
of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem
when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even
if it almost never has that result.
How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John
Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its
highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not
a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into
government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and
including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American
should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears
coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.
Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are
trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.
Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a
big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful,
rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book
Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was
trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look
like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative
speculation, who needs facts?
The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's
taking the political line on the DNC emails!
Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The
"discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."
"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies
.
It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the
Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find
that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have
actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have
been so convinced in their day.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to
consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.
It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should
not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought
into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and
his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them
personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since
1932.
Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control
of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As
Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to
them is high treason.
@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war,
since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both
fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our
survival.
Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the
article
Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No.
Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple
terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone
explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN,
Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual
citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and
genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?
" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is
not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense".
Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war
against Russia.
"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major
newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "
Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every
federal agency such as the FBI, etc
The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan
and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have
co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign
intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that
the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .
Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could
be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to
accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes
you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of
information, especially about people.
I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us
into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero
accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for
having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.
The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes
THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go
unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American,
anywhere, who feels this is okay.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that
hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar
question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch.
Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess.,
while the answer was so close, on the surface.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who
typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a
typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."
I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so
not.
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that
the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and
journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.
August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F.
Tracy
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I
am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here
– in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their
jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.
I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so
largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue
explains very clearly how it works.
-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did
not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and
destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is
true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking
himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over
the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at
least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack
Poland. The trap worked.
@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the
CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret
service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly
for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report
of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud
in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter
Database
While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of
Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database
right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus
on protecting our vote from our own government.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider
even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular
profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine
(initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started
immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but
this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was
confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media
on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and
Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne
Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do
not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government
schooling* .
Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA
The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his
son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA
involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the
French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua.
I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he
sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself
care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the
Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least
since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
The trap worked.
What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the
form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key
sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what
the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist
scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it
works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.
As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that
holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and
came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who
assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the
British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA
would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much
mistaken.
"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very
much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery
to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference,
it would be illegal".
@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects
depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel
that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make
the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed
by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on
Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela,
has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an
American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014
I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a
Zio-bankster-quisling.
PG:
the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken
in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
getting to the crux of the matter
when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan /
Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine
(some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate
Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".
The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as
you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])
has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria
and elsewhere too.
All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll
eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery.
Which brings us to this curious comment..
The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!
So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know
the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made
symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the
zio-media/AIPAC/etc..
His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the
apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.
In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on
the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.
And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at
Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's
need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets
them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get
to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than
anything else.
"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would
freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them
back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on
any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for
any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.
Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been
around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way
forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way.
We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential
Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat
nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change
within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.
Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there
is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the
Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous
primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was
convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who
only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.
Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to
voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the
only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the
Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the
loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him.
But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in
primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map
where I live.
Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.
Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked.
Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that
even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.
"... the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset". ..."
Though WaPo's Josh Rogin characterizes the decision as intended to appease hawks while
seeking to avoid broader conflict escalation based on "limited arms sales" (and not approving
some of the heavier weaponry sought by Kiev), the move is likely to further ratchet up tensions
with Russia, which is ironic for the fact that the decision comes the same week that former
Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like
"an asset".
Or perhaps we will be assured this is just more 4-dimensional chess playing between
Trump and Putin to prove that not Putin but the Military Industrial Complex is once again
"unexpectedly" in charge?
"... "I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively." ..."
"... Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture." ..."
"... He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible." ..."
"... The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory. ..."
"... Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads. ..."
"I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is.
He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said
on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively."
Clapper took aim at the news that Putin
called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent
a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture."
He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed
over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not
all that visible."
The former intelligence chief said Putin likely learned to recruit assets to help with his
interests when he served as an officer in the KBG, which was the Soviet Union's main security
agency.
"You have to remember Putin's background. He's a KGB officer, that's what they do. They
recruit assets. And I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play
here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our
president," he continued.
The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like
Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also
stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he
found the message to be contradictory.
He also pointed to his previous experiences of trying to share intelligence with the
Kremlin, stemming back to the early 1990s, describing the attempts as a "one-way street."
Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security,
intelligence and foreign policy officials
filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and
Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation
and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web
operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian
businessmen," the brief reads.
"They range from the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is
his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to
the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian
operations and objectives," it continues.
The Goldwater-Nichols Act requires the president to submit a "National Security Strategy" report each year. Every president since
Ronald Reagan has failed to comply with the law in one or more years of his administration, but on December 17 Donald Trump issued
his report
.
Unfortunately, Trump's offering is of a piece with his prior displays of economic illiteracy and foreign policy jingoism. It's
a dog's breakfast of policy pronouncements that couldn't be more opposed to real "national security" if that had been the author's
intention.
The document reiterates Trump's commitment to economic protectionism in the guise of "fair and reciprocal" trade, rattles sabers
at Russia, China, and North Korea, and commits to extending decades of disastrous US military adventurism in the Middle East.
Trump's distant predecessors showed us what a real "National Security Strategy" would look like.
At the end of his two terms as president, George Washington warned in his farewell address that "[t]he great rule of conduct for
us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
Thomas Jefferson echoed that sentiment in his first inaugural address, announcing a doctrine of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship
with all nations – entangling alliances with none."
While serving as US Secretary of State, future president John Quincy Adams observed that America "goes not abroad in search of
monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her
own."
Those principles served the US well to the extent that they were followed – with a few exceptions, throughout the 19th century.
But since the Spanish-American War of 1898, the US has increasingly styled itself an imperial power, attempting to dictate to the
world at a cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions more abroad, as well as trillions of dollars redirected from
productive endeavors to paying the butcher's bill. The 20th century was a near-continuous orgy of bloodshed which, for the US, was
entirely optional.
A real "National Security Strategy" comes down to two things: Free trade, and minding our own business.
Early in his presidential campaign, Trump hinted at the latter, but quickly reverted to business as usual. He's clearly never
grasped the former at all. Unfortunate, as the two are also the elements of a great presidency, if such a thing is even possible.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William
Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted
with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
"A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the US's parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense"
ecosystems." Well said. National security parasites are so entrenched (and well fed by MIC) that any change of the US foreign
policy is next to impossible. The only legitimate course is more wars and bombing.
Notable quotes:
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security. ..."
"... Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.) ..."
"... As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia. ..."
"... Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. ..."
"... Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen. ..."
"... I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda. ..."
"... The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control. ..."
"... Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems. ..."
"... Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times. ..."
Despite a lack of evidence at its core – and the risk of nuclear conflagration as its
by-product – Russia-gate remains the go-to accusation for "getting" the Trump
administration, explains Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen.
The foundational accusation of Russia-gate was, and remains, charges that Russian President
Putin ordered the hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails and their public
dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the
Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy."
As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half
of media and government investigations, we are left with Russia-gate without Russia. (An apt
formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer James Carden.)
Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against retired Gen. Michael Flynn,
Trump's short-lived national-security adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and
inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and his
partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with
improper collusion with Russia, except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn.
Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion, have
spread to "contacts with Russia" -- political, financial, social, etc. -- on the part of a
growing number of people, often going back many years before anyone imagined Trump as a
presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal or
potentially so.
This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe
McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of
American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.
More to the point, advisers to U.S. policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must
have many and various contacts with Russia if they are to understand anything about the
dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. I myself, to take an individual example, was an adviser to
two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered my wide-ranging and longstanding
"contacts" with Russia to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president whom I
advised.
To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and
to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is
also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow
suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The
Wall Street Journal and by
The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a
previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest
threat to American national security.
Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in
November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom
remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the
still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.)
That said, the mainstream American media have been largely responsible for inflating,
perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russia-gate as the real political crisis it has become,
arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history.
The media have done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified
news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting to tacit forms of censorship by
systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions.
(For inventories of recent examples, see
Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortiumnews . Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news" should
visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist
Robert Parry.)
Still worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications
once prized for their journalistic standards, where expressed disdain for "evidence" and
"proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these
practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism.
As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable
television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are
examples of Russia-gate without Russia.
Flynn and the FBI
Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution
and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI
about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming
Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to
sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving
office.
Those sanctions were highly unusual -- last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of
Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified
cyber-attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to make even more difficult
Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.
Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is
commonly thought, but Russia-gate -- that is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which
Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation. (Or
which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a
personal rebuff, was eager to believe.)
But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador -- as well as other Trump
representatives' efforts to open "back-channel" communications with Moscow – were
anything but a crime. As I pointed out in
another commentary , there were so many precedents of such overtures on behalf of
presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow
not to make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the
relationship.
When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to
keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of the incoming
administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President
Pence and finding himself trapped -- or possibly entrapped -- between loyalty to his president
and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded with a representative of
the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russia-gate prior to the
election and which had escalated after Trump's surprise victory.
In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately to
Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to U.S. national security, not a
crime. And, assuming that Flynn was acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did
Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way,
it was with Israel, not Russia , having been asked by that government to dissuade countries
from voting for an impending anti-Israel U.N. resolution.
Removing Tillerson
Finally, and similarly, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to
drive Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon,
anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. Tillerson was an admirable
appointee by Trump -- widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and
practical-minded man.
Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely
profitable and strategically important energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the
slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given way to charges that
he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department,
as indeed he should do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have
raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's undermining of this purportedly
glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries,
and editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall a major diplomatic triumph by the
State Department or a Secretary of State in recent years?
The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its
nuclear-weapons potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to the sides involved. Forgotten,
meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested
Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging
of a president by his own State Department.
In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be
ousted. Meanwhile, however, he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russia-gate compels him
to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while, at the same time, calling
for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if
left unencumbered, he might achieve.)
Evidently, Tillerson has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian
counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to
engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments involved in the current
crisis.
Tillerson's fate will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting
America: cooperation or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a
détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that it will become
hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always
involved. But in these unprecedented times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who
represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President Trump
himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to
gravely endanger American national security?
Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and
Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation , where a version of this
article first appeared.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm
"Thanks to Flynn's indictment, we now know that the Israeli prime minister was able to
transform the Trump administration into his own personal vehicle for undermining Obama's lone
effort to hold Israel accountable at the UN. A clearer example of a foreign power colluding
with an American political operation against a sitting president has seldom, if ever, been
exposed in such glaring fashion.
"Kushner's deep ties to the Israeli right-wing and ethical breaches
"The day after Kushner was revealed as Flynn's taskmaster, a team of researchers from the
Democratic Super PAC American Bridge found that the presidential son-in-law had failed to
disclose his role as a co-director of his family's Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation
during the years when his family's charity funded the Israeli enterprise of illegal
settlements. The embarrassing omission barely scratched the surface of Kushner's decades long
relationship with Israel's Likud-led government. [ ]
"A Clinton mega-donor defends Kushner's collusion
"So why isn't this angle of the Flynn indictment getting more attention? An easy
explanation could be deduced from the stunning spectacle that unfolded this December 2 at the
Brookings Institution, where the fresh-faced Kushner engaged in a 'keynote conversation' with
Israeli-American oligarch Haim Saban. [ ]
""The spectacle of a top Democratic Party money man defending one of the Trump
administration's most influential figures was clearly intended to establish a patina of
bipartisan normalcy around Kushner's collusion with the Netanyahu government. Saban's effort
to protect the presidential son-in-law was supplemented by an op-ed in the Jewish Daily
Forward headlined, 'Jared Kushner Was Right To 'Collude' With Russia -- Because He Did It For
Israel.'
"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal
anti-Trump "Resistance" minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel
Maddow, who has devoted more content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to
entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel.
"There is simply too much at stake for too many to allow any disruption in the preset
narrative. From the journalist pack that followed the trail of Russiagate down a conspiracy
infested rabbit hole to the Clintonites seeking excuses for their mind-boggling campaign
failures to the Cold Warriors exploiting the panic over Russian meddling to drive an
unprecedented arms build-up, the narrative must go on, regardless of the facts."
Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this
one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream
source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally
(generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen.
One quick example -- a few months ago the otherwise execrable Hannity actually had on his
show the great Dennis Kucinich who railed against the deep state for attacking Trump b/c of
his overtures toward peace with Moscow and how the deep state was using Russiagate to do it,
etc. Kucinich was sensational. I doubt Maddow would ever have given him such a platform to
voice the truth like Hannity did on this particular occasion.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm
I may have to take a look at Fox again–I bet you are right. Hannity as an arbiter of
truth–oh my god
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm
On this one particular issue, Hannity gets things right.
Rob , December 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
If Hannity ever reports a story correctly, it's only because it coincides with his deeply
partisan interests. Being truthful is something about which he cares little, if at all.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Yeah Drew-
For years I railed against Fox, but nowadays they seem to be the relatively sensible ones.
Tucker Carlson is exceptionally bright, and I have no idea what got into Hannity. I used to
loathe him to no end. Him giving Dennis Kucinich a chance to speak his mind is something I
never would have imagined.
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:36 pm
Isn't it something Mr. Scott?
Dave P. , December 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Drew and Skip Scott – Yes, I agree with you. I watched Dennis Kucinich too. Hannity
and Carlson have been doing some very good reporting on these issues. It is amazing how the
things have changed. Fox News was "No" for progressives to go to.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm
Prior to Trump's presidency I would never watch Fox News, but on this issue,, they are a
more accurate source of information then any other broadcasting media. Rachel Maddow does
nothing but rave, as if she had her own personal agenda, and maybe she does, ousting Trump,
and that a woman didn't win the White House. I too saw the interview with Kucinich, and
indeed it was a very good one.
RamboDave , December 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Tucker Carlson, on Fox (right before Hannity), has had Glenn Greenwald on several
times.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:08 am
That basically maps directly onto the fact that Russia is the one issue Trump is right
on.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Great article. Has America gone off the deep end? I just watched the first ten minutes of
an anti-Putin and anti-Russian Frontline on television two nights ago. I have never seen more
blatant or shameless propaganda. Because my mom watches tv all day and I am taking care of
her, I see the same slop, drivel, and gibberish parroted all day long on the major news
outlets. Perhaps I should state that more professionally: I see the same shameless propaganda
parroted daily by the mainstream news media And it occurs to me–these young news
commentators are not part of a conspiracy, willfully lying–they actually believe the
propaganda. We are in trouble. I think as a group we act much more like bees in a hive or
monkeys in a troop than we do as rational beings, and I mean no disrespect to bees or
monkeys.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more
complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union
where people actually believe the regime's propaganda.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Personally I believe that many do know that there is nothing to the Russia-gate story, but
go along to get along, and they are no different then politicians, who bow before the Israeli
Lobby, or NRA, or corporate groups to get reelected, and maintain their standing in their
party. Another way of putting it, is to say they are willing to prostitute themselves. I
can't see myself doing that.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 12:36 am
I, too, saw this scurrilous 'documentary' – "Putin's Revenge" – and made a
point of writing down the names of a good number of those commentators moving the narrative
along. All of them are well-known active Zionists or children of American Zionists who've
helped create and ardently protect the State of Israel. I wish I could remember now at least
some of the commentors' names. I didn't see Frontline' "Putin's Revenge" on PBS. It was on a
National Geographic channel that traditionally shows those anthropological 'documentaries'
about "Ancient Alien Visitors," "Gods from Outer Space, etc .pleasant programs to fall to
sleep by. 'Putin's Revenge', however, was grotesque in its downright lies – making me
furiously wide awake until I could google info on those names.
alley cat , December 15, 2017 at 2:36 pm
"Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger
American national security?"
The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for
money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do.
They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to
do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor
suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can
prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out
of control.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm
This is a great article by one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable commentators on
Russia remaining active despite the ongoing dangerous propaganda storm. Those responsible for
this storm are threatening our continued existence. Because of this depressing salient fact,
the democratic party, which has been fully on board with this, has totally sacrificed its
legitimacy and degenerated to a clear and present existential danger. Clear thinking people
have to view it as such and take necessary action based upon that fact, which is serious in
its implications, since it is difficult in the extreme to supplant an existing party in a two
party system (which has degenerated into a two faction one party state some time ago) in
light of the media propaganda, intelligence and police control exercised by this odious
system.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:11 pm
Really glad, Mr, Cohen, to see your article in Consortium. Your voice is always a wise
one. Weekly listener.
Very important and accurate information, for the most part, in my view, though I have a
few caveats.
Unfortunately for our perception of the 'goodness' of those in power, I tend to think the
level of knowledge and intention of those who spread Russiagate are more cynical than you
imagine.
When we read certain articles from hardline think-tanks and serious political commentary
from those publications and outlets which sustain the current 'scandal' we see a surprising
awareness of Russia's true intentions and nature. Sober, and reasonable. The problem is that
this commentary is not what is used to persuade any element of the public toward a certain
view on Russia. You instead see it within the establishment essentially talking amongst
themselves.
The problem, as I see it, is that these people are fully aware of the truth, as well as
Russia's intentions. They are just quite simply spinning vast lies to the contrary whenever
they speak to, or in front of, the public. For two main reasons:
Hobbling Trump, for a number of reasons, not least of which amounts to his unwillingness
to pretend he cares about 'spreading Democracy' around the world. More immediate goal.
Trying to put a lid on a rapidly boiling over domestic discontent with the status quo.
Meaning corporate control over the government, pro-corporate, anti-democratic policy, and
endless senseless war.
The remainder of this piece refers to #2.
Russia is an 'enemy' now, more than anything else, because, for whatever it's
self-interested motivations, it is a loud, prominent, powerful voice actively and
methodically criticizing and opposing US imperial hypocrisy, double-standards, and
deception.
We are told they 'sow chaos'. Code for platforming anti-establishment truth-tellers.
We are told they cause us to 'lose trust in our system of government'. Code for them platforming people who help expose, like Bernie Sanders does, how 'our system of government'
has been taken from us by corporations, and making us want it back, for the people.
We are told that Russia is, in however many words, whatever we, ourselves are.
Imperialistic, disregarding of truth and reality, arrogant, entitled, expansionist etc. The
American people are waking up to what the Empire does, and why. The rather desperate idea is
to redirect that knowledge and stick it to Russia. Externalizing an internal threat.
Finally, we are told that Russia is criticizing and grand-standing against the West in
order to tamp down domestic discontent. Which, given the previous entry here, is showing to
be exactly what the US government is doing. To the letter.
Russia is a fake enemy, talked about in a fake way, by fake people in an increasingly fake
democracy. Respectfully, Mr. Cohen, I don't think ideology is the problem. I don't think
those at the helm of US foreign policy have had an ideology in a long, long time. I think
they have, with few exceptions, a 'prime directive': The retention and expansion of
Oligarchic corporate power.
Nowadays, fearmongering over immigrant crime, terrorists, non-state cyber-criminals, or
whatever else conjured to make the extremely safe-from-foreign-threats (To this day no war on
our soil since the Civil War. Itself a domestic threat) American people feel afraid, and thus
controllable and ignorant, is no longer working. Only a big fish like Russia can even hope to
do the job. Plus that big fish is one of the factors 'sowing chaos' by giving a voice to
anti-imperialists in the West to spread the truth of the government we actually live
under.
In short, Russiagate, and it's accompanying digital censorship efforts, are a desperate
attempt to rest control back over the American people and away from honest, rational
truth.
Even shorter, our rulers underestimated the power of the internet.
Kind regards,
Bill
Lois Gagnon , December 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm
Thank you. That is a really truthful post. It really is all about maintaining imperial
hegemony at all costs. Unfortunately, the cost could be the end of life on Earth. These
weasels controlling the machinery of state from the darkness must be exposed as the
treacherous criminals they are.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:22 am
Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s
parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems.
Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication
is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are
exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful
that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times.
And Twitter is helping because western media sources will not tell the truth and people
are taking to it to push back. I agree that at this time Fox is more interested in the facts
than MSNBC, and particularly Tucker Carlson. (The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are
showing what a fouled-up society America has become. It is feminist McCarthyism, sadly, and I
am glad Tavis Smiley is fighting back.)
Yesterday I had a conversation with a loud mouth believer of the "Putin did it" fable and
told him some details, that outright it was a fabrication, and someone nearby in the coffee
shop actually joined to support the pushback with other facts. So, I am hopeful that people
are waking up. And Nikki Haley has just been called by people on Twitter for her lies about
Iran provocation in Yemen. Plus documents on NATO expansion after Gorbachev was assured would
not happen, have just been revealed. I do think people are waking up.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Jessica,
That's what it takes. The political battle of our times. Good on you. I think you're
right. The beginnings of which seem to have motivated Russiagate in the first place. I did a
longer post on this above. Please keep spreading sense. I'll do the same.
Best wishes,
Bill
RnM , December 15, 2017 at 9:25 pm
It's good to be optimistc, but let us not forget the long history (short by Old World
standards) of the oligarchy of doing anything and everything to get what they want.
The present cock-up of Russia-gate (Geez, I hate using that MSM concocted jingo term) points,
not to the oligarchs losing their groove, but to an incompetent but persistent bunch of
Clinton/Obama synchophants. Their days in any kind of power are, thankfully, numbered. But the
snakes are lurking in the bushes, as are the deeper parts of the deep state. It's the long
game that they are in for.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Thanks, Jessica,
A hopeful comment! Here, too, I sense at least some more dissent among us citizens with the
prevailing lies.
When the bubble bursts, the boy has cried and everyone "realises" the emperor is naked, I
wonder, will our governments, politicians and media survive? Everyone, practically, is
complicit.
Thanks, Bill, and I think we're at a profound crossroads in world history. I saw an
interview on YouTube with young Americans who did not even know who won the Civil War nor why
it was fought! We all must speak out with conviction and without anger.
Realist , December 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm
My parents always used to use the old argument to keep my thinking on track and avoid
conforming to dangerous groupthink: "if everyone else decided to jump off the cliff, in the
river or out the 10th floor window, would you just follow the crowd?" Professor Cohen is one
of the rare little boys who either learned that lesson well or has always had strong innate
instincts to avoid following the crowd or jumping on self-destructive bandwagons. Most of the
readers of this site seem to have similar predilections and are among the very few Americans
not being led by the Pied Pipers of all-encompassing self-destructive Russophobia. (Is there
some common childhood experience or shared gene in our personal biographies that compel our
rigorous adherence to the principles we all uphold?) As other posters have noted here, those
few media personalities with a seeming immunity to the pathological groupthink now infecting
most of America are indeed a very curious lot, with little else in the way of ideological
conformity, but thank heavens for them for any restoration of mass sanity will surely have to
originate from within their ranks, examples and leadership. I, for one, am pulling for
Professor Cohen to be among those leading this country out of the wilderness of lock-step
madness.
Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm
We remember an era before 11/22/1963
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Realist I'm glad you brought up the readers on consortiumnews, and their not falling for
this Russia-Gate nonsense. People posting comments here in support of 'no Russian
interference' have been accused of being Trump supporters, but that was never the case. No,
instead many here just saw through the fog of propaganda, and certainly saw this Russia-Gate
idiocy as it being nothing more than an instigated coup. This defense of Trump could have
been for any newly elected president, but the division between Hillary supporters, and Trump
backers, has been the biggest obstacle to overcome, while attempting to explain your thought.
I truly think that if the shoe had been on the other foot, that the many posters of comments
here on consortiumnews would have been on Hillary's side, if it had been the same kind of
coup that had been put in place. It's time to tell John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey,
and Robert Mueller, to call Hillary and say, 'well at least we tried Madam Secretary', and
then be done with it.
Dave P. , December 16, 2017 at 2:43 pm
Realist and Joe – I always enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. Those of us who
have been reading professor Stephen Cohen's articles for more than four decades now , know
that he is the foremost authority on Russia. Instead of being courted to give his valuable
input into the relations with Russia, he and others like him are being vilified as Putin
apologists. It is the sign of the times we live in now.
As many comments posters here on this site had noted, the Russia-Gate has been
deliberately created to confront Russia at this time rather than later on. Russia is in the
way for final push for World domination – the Neoliberal Globalization.
Nobody, in Washington or elsewhere in the Country seems to ask why and for whom they, The
ruling Powers want to establish this World Empire at any cost – even at the risk of a
nuclear war. This process of building an Empire has changed the country as I had seen it more
than half a century ago.
NeoLiberal Globalization, building this World wide Empire during the last three or four
decades had its real winners and losers. Lot of wealth has been created all over the World
under neoliberal global economy.
The big time winners are top .01% and another about 10% are also in the winners category,
and have accumulated lot of wealth. From all over the World; China, India . . . this top 10%
class send their kids to the best universities in the West for professional education;
Finance, High tech, Sciences, and other professions and they get the jobs all over in Silicon
Valley, and big financial Institutions and other professional fields in U.S. , U.K.,
Australia Canada . . .
The losers are middle class in U.S. – whom Hillary called deplorables –
especially in those once mighty Industrial States in the Midwest, and East. With my marriage
here , I inherited lots of relatives more than forty five years ago, most of them in the
Midwest. As somebody commented a few weeks ago on this site about these middle class people
that their " Way of Life " has been destroyed. It is true. All these people voted for Trump.
With the exception of two, all our relatives in the Midwest and elsewhere on my wife's side
voted for Trump. They are good, hard working people. It is painful to look at those ruined
and abandoned factories in those States and ruined lives of many of those Middle Class
people. Globalization has been disastrous for the middle class people in U.S. It is a race to
the bottom for those people.
Ask those relatives if they have ever read anything about Russia during 2016. Not one of
them have ever read or listened to anything related to Russian media or other Russian source.
They did not even know if anything like RT or Sputnik News ever existed. Most of them don't
even know now. And it is true of the people we associate with here where we live. None of
them have time to read anything let alone Russian Media. I came to know about RT during
events in Ukraine in 2014, and about Sputnik News over a year ago when this Russia- Gate
commotion began. And I had read lot of Russian literature in my young age.
As several articles on this website have pointed out those email leaks were an inside job.
Russia-Gate is just a concocted scheme to bring down Trump. And to destabilize Russia –
a hurdle to Globalization and West's domination.
Skip Scott , December 17, 2017 at 8:39 am
Dave P-
Yours is a very accurate portrayal of the heartland of America. I live in a very rural
area of the southwest, and you describe reality there to a "T". They are much too busy trying
to survive to dig too deeply into world affairs. Thank goodness at least they've got Tucker
Carlson at Fox to contrast the propaganda spewers on the other networks. They know the latte
sippers and their government has abandoned them, but they don't fully understand the PNAC
empire's moves in pursuit of global domination, and many wind up in the military jousting at
windmills.
Realist , December 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm
I totally concur, Dave. I'm 70 and well remember, as a little kid, as a teenager and as a
young man, folks talking about a far-off ideal of world unity, wherein all people on earth
would share in earth's bounty and have the same democratic rights. The UN was supposed to be
one of the first steps in that general direction. However, nobody thought that the eventual
outcome would be what the movement has transmogrified into today: neoliberal globalism in
which a tiny fraction of the top 1% own and control everything, with the rest of us actually
suffering a drastic drop in our standard of living and a blatant diminution of our political
rights.
It's been fifty years since I lived in Chicago, and about 45 since I last lived in the
Midwest, but I was born and raised there and well recognise everything you have said about
the place and the people in your remark to be entirely correct. It's also true for most of
the other regions of this country in which I have lived, but the "Rust Belt" has paid the
price in spades to satiate the neoliberal globalist "free traders." (Remember when THAT
catchphrase was first sold to the working classes by Slick Willie's DLC wing of the
Democratic party? He and Al Gore basically ended up doubling the ranks of "Reagan Democrats"
whether they intended to do so or not. And, Hillary was so delusional as to assume those
people would be on her side!)
Dave P. , December 17, 2017 at 11:36 pm
Yes, Realist. That Slick Willie and Gore did the most damage to the working class than any
other administration in the recent American history. And being progressive democrats, we
worked hard for their election as volunteers registering voters. At that time Rolling Stone
Magazine called them as Saviors after Reagan and Bush era of greed – as they called it.
Clintons sold the Democratic Party to the Wall Street and to Neoliberal Globalization. Tony
Blair did the same in U.K. to the Labor Party.
Then we put faith in Hopey changey Obama and worked for his election. And he turned out to
be big fraud too. After his Libya intervention and then on to Syria, I finally got turned off
from Democratic Party politics. My wife, and I had started with McGovern Campaign in
1972.
Talking about Chicago, I landed at O'Haire fifty two years ago during snowy Winter, with
just a few hundred dollars in my pocket enough for one semester on my way to Graduate School.
You can not do it these days. America was at it's best. Ann Arbor was a Republican town those
days with very friendly people. Compared to Europe, and other cultures, I found Americans the
least prejudiced people, very open to other cultures. The factories In Michigan, Ohio,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana . . . were humming. Never on Earth, such a prosperous middle
class on such a scale has ever been created; made of good, hard working people in those small
and big towns. The workers were back bone of the Democratic Party. And every thing looked
optimistic. I, and couple of my friends thought it can not get better than this on Earth.
And all this seems like a past history now. Life is still good but that stability and that
optimism of 1960's is gone. I visited Wisconsin and Michigan last Spring and in Fall again
this year. It is painful to look at those gigantic factories shut down and in ruins. I lived
for a decade in Michigan. As I said in my comments above, the biggest loser in this
NeoLiberal Globalization is American Middle Class.
Piotr Berman , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Jessica K: The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society
America has become.
One could say that there is nothing bad about a witch hunt, provided that it genuinely
goes after evil witches. Perhaps the worst hitch hunt in my memory was directed at preschool
teachers accused of sexual molestation and sometimes satanism. Probably we are not in this
Animal Kingdom story (yet):
Denizens of AK see a hare running very fast and they ask "what happen?" Mr. hare answers
"They are castrating camels!" "But you are a hare, not a camel!" "Try to prove that you are
not a camel!".
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:02 pm
"In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused
of shooting civilians in the Maidan demonstrations in February 2014, the defence has produced
two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign snipers, at least 50 of
them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze have
agreed to testify [ ]
"This dramatic and explosive evidence was first brought to light by the Italian journalist
Gian Micalessin on November 16 in an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale and is again
brought to the world's attention by a lawyer with some courage picking up on that report and
speaking with the witnesses himself. These witnesses stated to Gian Micalessin, even more
explosively, that the American Army was directly involved in the murders.
"The clear objective of the Maidan massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014 was to sow chaos
and reap the fall of the democratically elected, pro-Russian Yanukovych government. People
were slaughtered for no other reason than to destroy a government the NATO powers, especially
the United States and Germany, wanted removed because of its opposition to NATO, the EU, and
their hegemonic drive to open Ukraine and Russia to American and German economic expansion.
In other words, it was about money and the making of money.
"The western media and leaders quickly blamed the Yanukovych government for the killings
during the Maidan demonstrations, but more evidence has become available indicating that the
massacre in Kiev of police and civilians – which led to the escalation of protests,
leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government – was the work of snipers working
on orders of government opponents and their NATO controllers using the protests as a cover
for a coup.
"One of the snipers already admitted to this in February 2015, thereby confirming what had
become common knowledge just a few days after the massacre in Kiev and in a secretly recorded
telephone call, the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet reported to the EU head of Foreign
Policy, Catherine Ashton, in early March 2014, that there was widespread suspicion that
"someone from the new coalition" in the Kiev government may have ordered the sniper murders.
In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that in the course of the
massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that
gained wide attention.
'Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, at the University of Ottawa, published a devastating paper on the
Maidan killings setting out in extensive detail the conclusive evidence that it was a false
flag operation and that members of the present Kiev regime, including Poroshenko himself were
involved in the murders, not the government forces. [ ]
"In the November 16 article in the Italian journal Il Giornale, and repeated on Italian TV
Canale 5, journalist Gian Micalessin revealed that 3 Georgians, all trained army snipers, and
with links to Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgian security forces were ordered to travel to Kiev
from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to
testify in Kiev."
The pretext for the western-supported overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was the
massacre of more than a hundred protestors in Kiev in February 2014, which Yanukovych
allegedly ordered his forces to carry out. Doubts have been expressed about the evidence for
this allegation, but they have been almost entirely ignored by the western media and
politicians.
Ukrainian-Canadian professor Ivan Katchanovski has carried out a detailed study of the
evidence of those events, including videos and radio intercepts made publicly available by
pro-Maidan sources, and eye witness accounts. His findings point to the involvement of
far-right militias in the massacre and a cover-up afterwards:
– The trajectories of many of the shots indicate that they were fired from buildings
that were then occupied by Maidan forces.
– Many warnings were given by announcers on the Maidan stage about snipers firing from
those buildings.
– Several leaders of the then opposition felt secure enough to give speeches on the
Maidan around the time that gunmen in nearby buildings were shooting protestors dead, and
those leaders were not targeted by the gunmen .
– Many of the protesters were shot with an outdated type of firearm that was not used
by professional snipers but was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon.
– Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by five different
TV channels were either removed from their websites immediately after the massacre or not
made publicly available.
– Official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence
collected during the investigations have not been made public, while crucial evidence,
including bullets and weapons, has disappeared.
– No evidence has been given that links the then security forces' weapons to the
killings of the protesters.
– No evidence has been given of orders to shoot unarmed protestors even though the new
government claimed that Yanukovych issued those orders personally.
– So far the only three people have been charged with the massacre, one of whom has
disappeared from house arrest.
Thank you Abe that article could change everything
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:54 pm
Abe,
Thanks for advocating Dr Katchanovski! I have been reading some of his papers since a year or
two and his work seems very thorough! He uses physical facts like trajectories of bullets to
determine where shots originated.
Another expert in the field who knows Mr Katchanovski fully endorsed his academic work
without any hesitation when I asked him recently. He is being published by publishers with
the highest demands. His work can be found in academia.com or is it .org, login is free of
charge.
His work deserves the attention of real journalists.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Oh, sorry, I see u already mentioned academia.edu!
No harm repeating though.
And it is .edu. :)
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Ditto with the airliner shootdown.
Russia is accused and evidence is destroyed/suppressed.
The pattern is quite clear. Russiagate is merely an extension of the same pattern.
Remember those intelligence tests that consist of presenting a series of numbers, and the
test taker has to figure out what the next number in the pattern is . . .
So, the Russiagate thing is merely the next item that continues the pattern of Maidan, plane
shootdown and cover-up, shootdown of plane in Sinai, etc. etc. etc.
I think the deep state REALLY went apoplectic when Snowden escaped to Russia.
They will have their revenged, at any price, to the USA, to Russia, to the world. These
are madmen.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:32 am
It's prove Abe that 'only if you live long enough' applies to learning these newly
uncovered facts regarding the Maiden Square riots. Let's hold out hope that the truth to MH17
comes out soon. Another thing, how can these sanctions against Russia stay in place while
everything known as a narrative to that event comes unraveled.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:31 pm
That's a good article , worth reading in its entirety. Thanks.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 1:23 am
Abe, thank you so much for this information. US fingerprints are all over Ukraine's
sickening economic 'reforms', too! Have you read the House Ukraine Freedom Support Act
– passed by both houses in the middle of the night Dec. 2014? I have. Wade through
until nearly the end where it gives President Obama #1. the power to work toward US
corporations exploring and developing Ukraine's natural resources (including fracking) once
'reforms' have been put in place (privatization); #2. the power to ask the World Bank to
extend special loans for US corporations to develop those natural resources; #3. the power to
install 'defensive' missile sites all along Russia's western borders; #4. the power to free
US NGO's in Russia from their previously non-partisan restraints and allow them to work with
anti-Putin political groups.
I urge you to google Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul/Ukraine Freedom Support Act -2014. You won't
believe how that bill got through the House of Representatives and Senate. And you'll have to
laugh when you hear the word "democracy" in any context with "the USA".
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 6:48 pm
I also see the sexual allegations made against Trump, as another opportunity to oust him
from his presidency. I in no way condone such behavior, but it's disturbing to think the main
motivation driving this is another means of trying to oust him from his presidency. I don't
believe, as these women claim, that they felt "left out", in the recent outings of men who
have misused their positions of power to exploit women sexually.
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm
Yep, the Weinstein thing is being trumpeted and amplified to the extent that it synergizes
wtih attempts to oust Trump. It is handy to the deep state. Trump qua political figure is
being tarred with the Weinstein brush. That is the main reason we are seeing such a heavy
dose of stories on male bad behavior. We would not be seeing this if Hillary were in power.
Just a few stories but not full-court press. Because too many of these bad actors are
actually in the Hillary camp. Like, most of Hollywood. The story wouldn't help her,
politically, if she were in power. It only helps politically to drag down Trump. Before the
Weinstein thing came along, we arleady had teh golden showers fairy tale. In fact it would
not surprise me at all if Rose McGowan had some kind of political support and encouragement
to "go public."
this is no way means that I think this kind of thing is OK. But, things are not
straightforward in our world. It is a political as well as a "moral" or lifestyle story. One
of the political targets is Trump. Notice that the heads of studios who knew all about this
behavior and did nothing are not being forced to step down. Let's check out their political
donations . . .
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:44 am
What if the 'Sexual Predator Purge' stories along with the 'Get Trump Out of Office'
campaign were but two stories colliding into each other? I mean a reporter in our TMZ world
we live in would need paid a handsome sum to continually stay quiet over a Harvey Weinstein
kind of scoop, so eventually these scandals had to come out. And then there's hateable loud
mouth the Donald, who must be stopped by any means. Put the two together, and hey with how
all these big shot perv's are going down, why not corral Trump and force him to resign. It's
even cheaper than impeachment.
So the conniving once again craft together a piece of fiction, mixed in with some reality,
and take the American conscience off into another realm of fantasy. Hate can get anybody
carted off to the guillotine, if the timings right.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:55 am
Andrew Bacevich mentions the Weinstein scandal, and then goes on to suggest what the
conversation should be.
Bacevich is fine as far as he goes
But he never quite "turns the corner" himself in taking the story as far as it needs to be
taken and laying out the conclusions that the public needs to grasp.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am
Yes! That! Thank you, Litchfield.
Bacevich is knowledgeable and worth reading. But he never, afaik, ventures to look deeply
enough into the imperial heart of darkness – "turn the corner", as you say.
Leslie F. , December 15, 2017 at 7:11 pm
So the investigation isn't really about Russia. It is about corruption, money laundering,
tax evasion, etc. All worthy of investigation. Not to mention the conspiracy to kidnap the
Turkish cleric and collusion with Israel This investigation should not be shut down because
the deep state and the press are in a conspiracy to blame it all on Russia. It is up to you
guys in the press to convince your colleagues to call it what it really is, and expose those
members who continue to misrepresent reality. The press, as a whole, has dropped the ball in
a big way on this, but that is not Mueller's responsibility. The 4th estate is a mess and you
should be trying to figure out how to clean it up without violating the constitution.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 7:58 pm
This is one of the reasons I no longer support Democracy Now. As Mr. Cohen said, " worse,
this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for
their journalistic standards, "
God, help us, everyone including mental health professionals have no sense of
professionalism, but they sure know how to make a buck, and try to undo a presidency.
"There are Thousands of Us": Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump's Increasing
Instability
I read your post, and of course I agree. Some of the allegations are so minor, as he
hugged me and gave me a kiss on my mouth. He touched my breast. I was in the dressing room
when he came in unannounced, and my hair was in curlers, and I was only wearing a robe, but I
was nude underneath. Of course some were more disconcerting then those I mentioned, but all
claim to be traumatized. I have no doubt their agenda is to bring him down and the whole
thing has been orchestrated to do just that. Where is all the concern, and coverage of rape
in this country where the estimates go from 300,000 to over a million women raped each year?
Where are the stories about sexual trafficking of children, or the children who are sexually
abused in their own homes? I've never seen coverage on these issues like what is happening
now. That is another reason I find this whole thing appalling. Not to mention using sexual
harassment as a political tool to bring down a president.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:41 am
So many examples of this. There's an alternative newspaper comic I used to like, "Tom the
Dancing Bug" – smart, subversive, and "progressive". But the writer has completely
bought into Scary Putin/Puppet Trump. It's depressing.
"unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous" sums it up nicely. It was also good to have
Professor Cohen's endorsement of this website's courageous initiatives in combatting the
Russia-gate farce.
Bob Van Noy , December 16, 2017 at 11:15 am
I'll happily second that thought BobH. And thanks
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Thank god Consortium News keeps up the pressure on the Russia-gate scam.
And glad to see Stephen Cohen published here.
Readers of this site need to keep reminding themselve of the basic background on this -- at
least, I do -- in case opportunities comes along to deflate others' credulousness.
One question for Stephen Cohen:
Your wife is the editor of The Nation.
What has The Nation done to stop the madness?
Not enough. What's the story?
In fact, during the campaign and post-election, The Nation shamefully lent itself to the
craziness on the left that sought to devalidate not only the results of the election but
Trump himself qua human being. Nothing has been too far below the belt for Nation editors and
writers to strike. I have had the ongoing impression that The Nation's editorial board really
cannot see below the surface on any of this and have driven a very superficial anti-Trump,
"resist" narrative dangerous in its implications. I think I have seen just one story, by a
Patrick someone, that seriously questioned the russia-gate narrative. The Nation has fallen
right in to the trap of "I hate Trump so much and am so freaked out by his election that I
will make common cause with any one and any forces in our polity that will get rid of him
somehow." The nation seems too scared of facing head on the reality of deep state actors in
the USA. Or is too wedded to its version of reality to see what has become incraseingly clear
to growing numbers of Americans.
As many an intelligent and more knowledgeable than I person has said: There is plenty to
decry about Trump. But worse is the actions taken in the name of ridding the country of him
and his presidency.
Because of this consistent cluelessness I have canceled all gift subscriptions to The Nation.
I'll pay for my own sub, to see where this magazine goes, but others will have to pay their
own way with The Nation if they so choose.
So, please clean up at home and get the act together on what is left of the left.
First.
Thought the acronym PEPs was clever, Progressives Except for Palestine. Now it has morphed
into PEPIRs pronounced Peppers, Progressives Except for Palestine, Iran and Russia. Actually
could be PEPIRS adding Syria. If we added Iraq it could be PIEPIRS or Peepers. Actually, I
have little regard for such people whose aims include killing and maiming for land and
money.
Professor Cohen's credentials are very impressive and his voice and pen are badly needed.
People like him are precious resources for America and the world.
PIEPIRS is incorrect with the I before the E making Pipers. So we have PEPs, Peppers and
Pipers. Please excuse the frivolous comments but it feels good to try to expose their
hypocrisy in any way you can, that is of the Peps, Peppers and Pipers.
Gregory Herr , December 15, 2017 at 9:43 pm
What has really been astonishing to me -- beyond a lack of evidence for all the
"Russia-gate" allegations–is the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative in the
first place. Robert Parry has addressed this, but the voice of Stephen Cohen–with the
perspective of specialized scholarship and experience vis-a-vis Russia–is a welcome
voice indeed.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:55 am
The NY Times printed an allegedly explanatory graphic a couple of days ago showing the
Trump/Russia "scandal" as a basically a proliferating root system descending from the central
"collusion" premise, with the roots and rootlets branching down to encompass all the
disjointed facts (and "facts") and allegations that have appeared in the media.
The graphic was unintentionally revealing of the phoniness of the whole business: instead
of showing numerous observations leading to a deeper truth, it accurately depicted
"Russia-gate" as a pre-existing (fact-free) conceit that has chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments. That's the definition of a weak and useless theory!
Gregory Herr , December 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
It seems to that as a representative of the incoming Administration's foreign policy team
Flynn was just doing his job speaking with the Russian ambassador about the sudden and
striking maneuvers of Obama during the transition. And in trying to defuse potential fallout
and escalation due to those sanctions he was doing his job well. Was it not perfectly legal
and well within the parameters of his duties to establish some baselines of discussion with
counterparts?
Flynn's expression of thoughts on policy to counterparts were, to my mind, subject to the
approval of the head of the incoming Administration -- namely Trump, and Trump only.
By the time the FBI questioned Flynn, he surely must have had an idea his conversation
with the Ambassador had been under surveillance. What was the "lie"? Was he forgetful of a
detail and just caught in a nitpicking technicality? Or did he deliberately manufacture a
falsehood? When he gets past his legal entanglement, I sure hope he sits down to a candid
interview. I'd like him to demystify me about all this.
I like your phraseology David this nonsense has been chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments!
David G , December 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm
Thanks, Gregory Herr. In your earlier comment that I replied to, you reference "the
utterly preposterous nature of the narrative". That's not bad phraseology either.
And it also gets to something I've been thinking all along: I'd like to hear a
"Russia-gate" proponent, such as an MSNBC host, actually supply what they consider a
plausible narrative that fits all these breathless Trump/Russia "scoops".
I'm not demanding they prove anything, but just want to hear a story that makes sense.
Because it seems to me that all the little developments they rush toward with their
hummingbird attention spans don't fit together, *even if you concede all the dubious and
debatable "facts"*.
dhinds , December 16, 2017 at 7:28 am
An important interview, for anyone that wants to understand Russia, today.
Damn good Interview (on the part of Putin – He said what was needed to be said.
including "well, this is just more nonsense Have you lost your mind over there, or
something)? He then continued to wrap it up, in a reasonable and and diplomatic manner.
Effectively, the USA continues locked into denial, refusing to accept responsibility for
it's own current state of affairs. (The mass delusion is so thick you could eat it with a
spoon, if it wasn't so putrid).
Warmongering, terrorist and refugee creating Regime Change and mass assassinations (with
neither congressional oversight nor due process), arms and influence peddling profiteering,
the creation of a mass surveillance society and militarized police state that kills
minorities, the homeless and poor with impunity, mass incarceration in private for profit
prisons, increasingly gross inequality and the excessive cost of health care and education;
show the USA to be a society adrift and devoid of fundamental values. (And that's me talking,
not Vladimir Putin)
The Clintons, Bush's and their supporters are to blame and should be held accountable, but
mainly a new course for society must be charted and neither of the two corrupt major
political parties is capable of that at this time.
A new coalition is called for.
James , December 16, 2017 at 10:13 am
Thank you Mr. Cohen for your ever insightful and reasoned commentary on this disturbing
trend.
Clif , December 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Yes, thank you Dr. Cohen.
The lack of scrutiny is alarming. I'd like to offer Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan as
possible figures who are working the lines and should be drawn into the light.
rosemerry , December 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm
Professor Cohen is one of the few who really knows about Russia, so of course so any of
the Fawning Corporate Media (to quote Ray McGovern) denigrate his work. Even in GWBush's time
he often explained "the Cold War is over", and Obama's intemperate rush to expel diplomats
and push ahead the Russophobia after Trump's election had no basis in fact and just
encouraged the Hillary-Dems and neocons to continue the unjustified destruction of the one
aspect of Trump's "plan" that would have benefited the USA and peace.
Bill , December 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Do you really think that Obama was misled by others? I don't believe it. Obama and Hillary
are the origin of the fabrications. Will anyone hold their feet to the fire?
"It's the state-sponsorship of terrorism, stupid." The largest-scale, ongoing, organized
war criminal operation in the history of the world has murdered millions.
Vox has an article "The Left Shouldn't Make Peace With Neocons -- Even to Defeat Trump",
by Robert Wright. Bill Kristol of American Conservative and many other neocons including
Robert Kagan have dual US-Israel citizenship, and they push the MICC toward war. They'll be
pushing for war with Iran and maybe Russia.
Tim , December 18, 2017 at 10:13 am
Sadly, quite a concise, clear picture of the muddy waters called Russia-gate, Intel's
baby, and the faint possibilities of Tillerson and Lavrov holding fast against sabotage.
Let's hope against all hope.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
rumors
, denials, whistleblowers
,
backlash , demands, threats,
lies , bias, and
anti-bias surrounding Robert Mueller and his investigation, President Trump said Sunday
that he is not considering firing the Special Counsel.
"No, I'm not," Trump told reporters, when asked if he intended to fire Mueller, according to
Politico .
The president was returning to the White House from a weekend at the Camp David presidential
retreat.
Trump's allies complained
this weekend about the way Mueller's team went about obtaining from the presidential
transition. Mueller's spokesman Peter Carr said Sunday that the office had followed appropriate
steps to obtain the transition emails. Pro-Trump lawmakers and pundits also have accused the
special counsel's office of bias after it was revealed that two FBI officials who previously
served on Mueller's team had exchanged anti-Trump text messages.
And while Trump said "I'm not,"
Axios notes that he did criticize the fact that Mueller accessed
"many tens of thousands" of emails from the presidential transition, saying it was "not
looking good."
seth? he was the guy that stole the dnc and podesta emails (well at least the dnc emails)
and got them to julian assange. after he was murdered (well at least shot twice) on the
streets of d.c. (he actually died in a hospital; probably bears some looking into), julian
offered a reward for info on it, making many believe he was wiki's source.
seymour hersh, who followed the case closely, thinks the same, but agrees with the d.c.
police that he was just mugged, not shot by say hillary and podesta using imran awan or
something. http://archive.is/lD4BV if
so, for a lucky lady that hillary clinton has some real bad luck. but it is poetically
fitting that someone who actually killed dozens of people as a private citizen (and maybe a
million as a public servant), would be convicted in the public's eye of the one she didn't
really do.
Mueller has painted himself into a cesspool that is exploding. If he had an ounce of sense
or honor he would get the eff out before he has to start covering his own tracks. But don't
bet on Mueller doing the right thing. His pals in politics and the press have made him out to
be some kind of saint when he really is all t'aint, no saint (don't ask me what t'aint is,
ask someone else.)
Don't fire Mueller now- the cesspool is bursting at the seems and Mueller is standing
right under it.
It makes little sense to me that if Seth Rich was an idealistic young man, standing on
principle and conviction, who along with his brother contacted WikiLeaks and arranged to give
it evidence of Hillary's and Debbie's treachery against Sanders, why he would then have been
reported to be looking forward to joining the Hillary campaign staff in the Brooklyn
headquarters.
CrowdStrike (run by Shawn Henry, who is a former FBI official, promoted by Mueller), which
provided the narrative to the DNC that the "Russians did it," has never been independently
verified in their conclusions by the FBI. Or Mueller. Pull that thread and the sweater starts
to unravel.
Mueller doesn't have it in him to step aside. Therefore he needs to be indicted for
prosecutorial abuse. Slap his ass down hard. Handcuffs would be a nice touch.
Mueller didn't oppose the raid of Paul Manafort at 5 a.m. in the morning with guns drawn.
Sounds like a good law enforcement technique for the buzzard.
"... The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history. ..."
"... Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the "subordination" so necessary for politics. ..."
"... When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. ..."
"... It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic aristocracy." ..."
"... When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. ..."
"... Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare. ..."
"... In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. ..."
"... To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. ..."
"... It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America's Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. ..."
One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy.
Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental
exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics
frequently bemoan a "loss of democracy" due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian
measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption,
deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic
exceptions . The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing
the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction
between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.
The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy
because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to
confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous
rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for
themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most
successful public relations campaign in modern history.
What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a
country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth -- a plutocratic colonial
oligarchy, in short -- has succeeded not only in buying the label of "democracy" to market
itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and
psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and
well-documented arguments to the contrary.
To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this
article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained
and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present
).
To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the
freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those
who settled on the shores of the "new world," with few exceptions, did not respect the fact
that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living
there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and
killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately
thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the
indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to
North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women
were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and
equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and
the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The
former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the
overwhelming majority, meaning "the people," was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and
unremitting socio-economic oppression.
Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and
establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the
contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of
European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of
uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable
of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly
necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if
the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the
"subordination" so necessary for politics.
When the eminent members of the landowning class met
in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to
establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of
the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided
for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to
vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the
overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators
were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators,
and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President.
It is in this context that Patrick Henry
flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further
clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic
aristocracy."
When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no
significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this
is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply
meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began
around the time of "Indian killer" Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign in the 1830s.
Presenting himself as a 'democrat,' he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the
people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and
Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations
term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the
people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel
slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its
oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its
contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly
insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the
guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections
(procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative
understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained
power over the governing of their lives.
However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the
extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States
presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those
judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights
(Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country's history, and still
today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, "criminals," minors, the "clinically insane,"
political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as
long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are
pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do
not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the "choice" -- overseen by
an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme --
regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress
them for the next four years. "Multivariate analysis indicates," according to
an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, "that economic elites and
organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S.
government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no
independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite
Domination [ ], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy."
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been,
a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power.
Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected.
It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in
America's
Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries,
attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries,
and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is
just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the
FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and
likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau "extended its earlier clandestine operations
against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico
independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black
nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement,
and the 'New Left' in general" ( Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on
Political Freedom , p. 22-23).
Consider, for instance, Judi Bari's summary of its assault
on the Socialist Workers Party: "From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers
Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of
surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000
days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing."
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo
posted an article "based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials"
titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian Threat
Unchecked":
Axiomatic to the WaPohacks authors is that NATO ranks right up
there with the 1776 Declaration and the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's
doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as
evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.
Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days
later, since they aren't "fitted to the narrative."
History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS
(Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are,
and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so
painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(
Last month Seth Rich, a data analyst who worked for the DNC, was shot near his home in Washington DC. He was on the phone to his
girlfriend when it happened. Police were called to the scene and discovered the young man's body at roughly 4.20am. It was reported
that Rich was "covered in bruises", shot "several times" and "at least once in the back".
The New York Daily News reported:
" police have found little information to explain his death. At this time, there are no suspects, no motive and no witnesses
in Rich's murder.
While initial theories were that the killing was robbery or mugging gone wrong, the Washington Post said:
" There is no immediate indication that robbery was a motive in the attack but it has not been ruled out as a possibility."
Rich's family have also reported that nothing was taken:
" [Rich's] hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they
never took anything."
On August 9th Julian Assange gave an interview on Dutch television in which he seemed to imply that Rich's death was politically
motivated, and perhaps suggest he had been a source for the DNC e-mail leak:
That same day wikileaks tweeted that they were offering a $20,000 dollar reward for information on the killing of Mr Rich.
These are the facts of the case, so far. And they are undisputed.
I'm not going to take a position on the motive for Mr Rich's killing, or possible suspects. But I do want to point out the general
level of media silence. Take these facts and change the names – imagine Trump's email had been hacked, and then a staffer with possible
ties to wikileaks was inexplicably shot dead. Imagine this poor young man had been a Kremlin whistleblower, or a Chinese hacker,
or an Iranian blogger.
If this, as yet unsolved, murder had ties to anyone other than Hillary Clinton, would it be being so ritually and rigourously
ignored by the MSM?
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
"... How is your Debbie Wasserman doing -- did not she threatened the DC police investigator for doing his job of investigating the Awan affair? Debbie has been a major protector of the Awan family that accomplished the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity. And how is your Nobel Peace Laureate doing -- collecting nice fees from banksters for his betrayal of democracy in the US? ..."
Are you shocked about Seth Rich murder? Wikileaks has offered a reward to speed up a
search for the murderers, whereas DNC did nothing. Nothing! But the DNC was very active when
certain Mr. Awan needed legal protection.
How is your Debbie Wasserman doing -- did not she threatened the DC police investigator for
doing his job of investigating the Awan affair? Debbie has been a major protector of the Awan
family that accomplished the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity. And how is your Nobel
Peace Laureate doing -- collecting nice fees from banksters for his betrayal of democracy in
the US?
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director
of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17
federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election.
That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton
stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence
agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these
cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence
our election. I find that deeply disturbing."
Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint
statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National
Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions,
including from U.S. political organizations."
The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing
Russian intentions during the presidential election.
While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear
in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian
interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security
Agency (NSA).
Referring to the assessments, Clapper
stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and
the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my
former office."
Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.
FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for
– for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17
of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only
three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation
because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to
this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it
to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came
out.
The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to
'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and
Cyber Incident Attribution."
The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.
The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated
among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and
disseminated by those three agencies."
Following Clinton's presidential debate
claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."
However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:
We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director
of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies,
released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia
is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.
PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today
piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio." Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him
onFacebook.
"... The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative. ..."
"... The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!" ..."
The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on
Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports
Robert Parry.
If Russia-gate is the massive scandal that we are told it is by so many Important People --
across the U.S. mainstream media and the political world -- why do its proponents have to
resort to lies and exaggerations to maintain the pillars supporting the narrative?
A new example on Thursday was The New York Times' statement
that a Russian agency "spent $100,000 on [Facebook's] platform to influence the United States
presidential election last year" – when the Times knows that statement is not true.
According to Facebook, only 44 percent of that amount appeared before the U.S.
presidential election in 2016 (i.e., $44,000) and few of those ads addressed the actual
election. And, we know that the Times is aware of the truth because it was acknowledged in a
Times article in early October.
As part of that article, Times correspondents Mike Isaac and Scott Shane reported
that the ads also covered a wide range of other topics: "There was even a Facebook group for
animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid
ads."
As nefarious as the Times may think it is for Russians to promote a Facebook page about
"adorable puppies," the absurdity
of that concern – and the dishonesty of the Times then "forgetting" what it itself
reported just two months ago about the timing and contents of these "Russian-linked ads"
– tells you a great deal about Russia-gate.
On Thursday, the Times chose to distort what it already knew to be true presumably because
it didn't want to make the $100,000 ad buy (which is not a particularly large sum) look even
smaller and less significant by acknowledging the pre-election total was less than half that
modest amount – and even that total had little to do with the election.
Why would the Times lie? Because to tell the truth would undercut the narrative of evil
Russians defeating Hillary Clinton and putting Donald Trump in the White House – the core
narrative of Russia-gate.
Another relevant fact is that Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its
first two searches and only detected the $100,000 after a personal visit from Sen. Mark Warner,
D-Virginia, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator on
Internet regulation.
In other words, Facebook's corporate executives dredged up something to appease Warner. That
way, Warner and the Democrats could blame Russia for the Trump presidency, sparing further
criticism of Clinton's dreadful campaign (in which she labeled half of Trump's voters
"deplorables") and her neo-liberal economic policies (and neo-conservative foreign policies)
that have alienated much of America's working class as well as many progressives.
Leaving Out Context
The Times also might have put the $100,000 in "Russian-linked" ads over a two-year period in
the context of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue, but the Times didn't do that –
apparently because it would make even the full $100,000 look like a pittance.
Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt
with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative.
Ironically, the Times' latest false depiction of the $100,000 in ads as designed "to
influence" the 2016 election appeared in an
article about Facebook determining that other Russian-linked ads, which supposedly had a
powerful effect on Great Britain's Brexit vote, totaled just three ads at the cost of 97 cents.
(That is not a misprint.)
According to Facebook, the three ads, which focused on immigration, were viewed some 200
times by Britons over four days in May 2016. Of course, the response from British
parliamentarians who wanted to blame the Brexit vote on Moscow was to assert that Facebook must
have missed something. It couldn't be that many Britons had lost faith in the promise of the
European Union for their own reasons.
We have seen a similar pattern with allegations about Russian interference in German and
French elections, with the initial accusations being widely touted but not so much the later
conclusions by serious investigations knocking down the claims. [See, for instance,
Consortiumnews.com's " German
Intel Clears Russia on Interference. "]
The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!"
These days in Official Washington, it has become almost forbidden to ask for actual evidence
that would prove the original claim that Russia "hacked" Democratic emails, even though the
accusation came from what President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
acknowledged were "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
These "hand-picked" analysts produced the
evidence-lite Jan. 6 "assessment" about Russia "hacking" the emails and slipping them to
WikiLeaks – a scenario denied by both WikiLeaks and Russia.
When that "assessment" was released almost a year ago, even the Times' Scott Shane noticed
the lack of proof,
writing : "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most
eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government
engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to
'trust us.'"
But the Times soon "forgot" what Shane had inconveniently noted and began reporting the
Russian "hacking" as accepted wisdom.
The 17-Agencies Canard
Whenever scattered expressions of skepticism arose from a few analysts or non-mainstream
media, the doubts were beaten back by the claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies"
concurred in the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the hacking to
hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. And what kind of nut would doubt the collective
judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies!
Though the 17-agency canard was never true, it served an important purpose in establishing
the Russia-gate groupthink. Wielding the "all 17 intelligence agencies" club, the U.S.
mainstream media pounded politicians and policymakers into line, making any remaining skeptics
seem more out of step and crazy.
So, in May 2017, when Clapper (along with former CIA Director John Brennan) admitted in
congressional testimony that it wasn't true that all 17 agencies concurred in the Russian
hacking conclusion, those statements received very little attention in the mainstream
media.
The New York Times among other major news outlets just continued asserting the 17-agency
falsehood until the Times was finally pressured to correct its
lie in late June , but that only led to the Times shifting to slightly different but still
misleading wording, citing a "consensus" among the intelligence agencies without mentioning a
number or by simply stating the unproven hacking claim as flat fact.
Even efforts to test the Russian-hack claims through science were ignored or ridiculed. When
former NSA technical director William Binney conducted
experiments that showed that the known download speed of one batch of DNC emails could not
have occurred over the Internet but matched what was possible for a USB-connected thumb drive
-- an indication that a Democratic insider likely downloaded the emails and thus that there was
no "hack" -- Binney was mocked as a "conspiracy theorist."
Even with the new disclosures
about deep-seated anti-Trump bias in text messages exchanged between two senior FBI
officials who played important early roles in the Russia-gate investigation, there is no
indication that Official Washington is willing to go back to the beginning and see how the
Russia-gate story might have been deceptively spun.
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did. A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want
to know what these senior FBI officials had in mind.
But the Times and other big promoters of Russia-gate continue to dismiss doubters as
delusional or as covering up for Russia and/or Trump. By this point – more than a year
into this investigation – too many Important People have bought into the Russia-gate
narrative to consider the possibility that there may be little or nothing there, or even worse,
that it is the "insurance policy" that Strzok envisioned.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
George Orwell was right, he was just a few decades ahead of his time. Non-government actors
in the United States, including Google, have learned an important lesson from the 2016 election
and we can pretty much assure ourselves that the next election will see significant massaging
when it comes to what we read and hear.
ranney , December 15, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Lately I've heard on PBS and other news shows that Russia "invaded Ukraine" and also
attacked Crimea and essentially stole the island back to Russia. I forget the exact words used
about Crimea but that was the gist. I have heard several times people on PBS using the the
words Russia "invaded Ukraine" to describe what happened there. Like the N.Y.T. PBS is supposed
to be the go to place for unbiased news and now they are blatantly lying to the public –
and have been lying certainly as far back as 2014, if not before.
It's very discouraging to know that there are so few places where one can go to get actual
facts. Consortium is one and, surprisingly RT is often another – at least RT tells us
about stuff going on in other parts of the world that we never hear about in the MSM. Boy! talk
about being an insular country! America is the most isolated country in the world when it comes
to knowledge about other lands. We go on about how narcissistic Trump is, but the fact is that
our whole government and our MSM is totally narcissistic and has been for quite a while –
all we think about is us- and our government is willing to kill and lay waste anyone or any
country that doesn't do exactly what we want, even when what we want is disasterous for not
only other countries, but also disasterous for our own country. We are so narcissistic that we
can't see it.
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Well ranney, while I look at and read this site regularly, I gotta say that Trump is merely
a doppelgänger for our country's collective psyche. This country is off the rails in every
way possible. Yes, that includes those bad apples of the deep state AND compliant hamster
citizens who vote and are currently scurrying about on the wheel of capitalism in pursuit of
the Christmas Machine. All the hand wringing done on this web-site ain't gonna change any of
it.
Mr. Parry would do everyone justice by taking his excellent skills and expanding his writing
repertoire beyond Russia-gate. I'm seriously beginning to wonder what's up with him that he
repeatedly beats the same old sorry drum- like the MSM- only on the opposite side. It's getting
tiresome. How about proposing solutions to what ails us?
Sorry to ruin everyone's party.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 4:46 pm
"major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump-Russia story,
always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of
incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be
corrected, walked back, or retracted -- often long after the initial false claims spread, and
where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial
false stories are lavished:
– Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter
(Wash Post)
– An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin
agents (Wash Post)
– WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
– A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
– RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
– Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
– Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets,
echoing Homeland Security)
– Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment
fund under investigation (CNN) [ ]
"But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and
consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility
for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can't mean hiding behind
P.R. and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.
"At minimum, these networks -- CNN, MSNBC, and CBS -- have to either identify who purposely
fed them this blatantly false information or explain how it's possible that 'multiple sources'
all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries
and protests the next time they're attacked as 'Fake News' should fall on deaf ears, since the
real author of those attacks -- the reason those attacks resonate -- is themselves and their
own conduct."
Hilary gave it away, as the (anti-democratic)"Democratic Party" gave it all away and has
been doing it for decades.
Whereas the right has wisely (for it's purposes) built long term infrastructure of funded think
tanks, media, fundamentalist ideologists, etc; the Democratic Establishment has dumped on it's
base at practically ever turn, never really showing actual support for it's public community,
and has joined with the right to destroy all attempt to build an actual peoples' political
party.
I just turned 84 and have witnessed the ever-growing weakness and right-leaning of the Party"
since I was a little kid and have seen it only become more disgustingly lame and disingenuous
in all these years since, with extended travel, 20-year military service and work around the
world, in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
And we are largely to blame, being humans and Americans, we sit back-busy with our lives, and
neglect our responsibilities to our fellow man and community.
Get up off your ass, guys
JOHN L. OPPERMAN , December 15, 2017 at 4:53 pm
I must add, the so-called Party has quite consistently ACTIVELY fought against labor,
consumers, t's own loyal public.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Among the many great comments posted here I find in your resume Mr Opperman a ton of
experienced words worth listening too. In fact, it is people such as yourself that I feel our
younger generation should be learning from. Your traveling, and working for the government has
given you an insight that many of us do not have, nor will get since we are all not like you
John. So keep posting, and tell us what you think America should do next, as we go forward.
Thank you for your remarks, they are respected for what you have earned. Joe
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Thanks for this post John.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm
In the end, this whole RussiaGate scandal may actually have a positive impact if it can be
proven that it was a conspiracy cooked up by the "Deep State" as insurance in case of a Trump
victory. If this is proven and actually becomes common knowledge, people like Brennan and
Clapper, and their MSM mouthpieces, will never be trusted again. Though heads didn't roll after
the exposure of the "weapons of mass destruction" lie, this one might tip the balance. Their
argument that the "intelligence was mistaken" won't fly, as RussiaGate is so obviously a
purposely constructed lie. It would be even greater if this led to a counter-investigation
where all the perps were exposed and publicly prosecuted, and the Intelligence Agencies were
"broken into 1000 pieces." Maybe while they were at it, they could get around to auditing the
Pentagon. I like to dream big.
My hope is that websites like this one can continue to build an audience and speak truth to
power now that net neutrality appears dead.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Funny how the NYT will try and make hay with a collection of various Russian disjointed ads
on Facebook with an investment of $44,000.xx out weights the 4.9 billion dollars worth of free
media coverage the MSM gave Trump through the whole 2016 presidential campaign, and nobody
thinks nothing of it. If there was any type of collusion to help Trump win the White House then
why not question this free media give away?
As a side note, should we investigate Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn for colluding with
Israel?
Senator Mark Warner plays the part of the inquisitor well, and for that reason he has loss
my respect, if he ever had it to begin with. Enough of covering up for Hillary's guilt complex
to why she loss the election. Someone should just tell her, that even though she has done
everything there is in her power to take Putin out of power, that her presidential loss is all
on her. Putin didn't need to interfere, since by Hillary just being Hillary was enough to keep
her out of reach of the Oval Office.
I hope that in the coming year, that by some stroke of luck, that William Binney will get
the praise he deserves. We need more people like Binney working in our government, and without
him we all are left vulnerable to the many who don't represent our citizen values. I thought
the MSM's treatment of William Binney was disgraceful, to say the least.
Lastly, I would only hope that whoever it was that started this Russia-Gate nonsense would
be revealed, but hope doesn't prosecute anyone, but knowledge at least allows you too see who
and what is behind the curtain.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:46 pm
" a collection of various Russian disjointed ads on Facebook with an investment of
$44,000.xx .."
Yes , it was amazing that Russia was able to control our election so cheaply , but really ,
that was nothing. They swung the UK Brexit vote with Facebook ads costing them only 97 cents !
:
This whole Russiagate fraud could serve to awake a lot of Americans, if they would only look
into it. You are not going to find a more blatant example of fake news by every major media,
and also those supposedly upstanding Senators and Representatives, FBI and Justice Icons. If
the public ignores opportunities to wake up to this outrageous scam being perpetrated on them
now, there is little hope that they ever will. I try to get my friends interested in
researching Russiagate, and a few of them have become curious and started asking questions
– that's how awakening begins .
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Agreed. It's important to have just one or a few topics at most that you can suggest to your
uninformed friends as being worthy of their own time to research , with the ultimate goal of "
waking up ". Russia-gate is perfect. The Syrian War is another good one.
Pablo Diablo , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Also, a convenient excuse to discredit the "Special Counsel" Mueller investigation. "Witch
hunt", "Fake News", which will come in handy if any real crimes are exposed. Reminds me of one
criminal mob taking over territory from the current bunch of criminals.
Sad to see. The definition of "government" is that it represents "the people". Yet, I wonder if
any government on Earth does represent "the people".
Brendan , December 15, 2017 at 6:02 pm
In spite of all the blatant lies that it publishes, the New York Times is still highly
regarded by the political and media establishment, even in Europe.
In Hamburg on 3 December 2017, the NYT was awarded the Marion Dönhoff Prize for
International Understanding and Reconciliation. In his presentation speech, the German
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the NYT as an authority of enlightenment and a
beacon of reason.
In fact, none of the media outlets that were recently declared foreign agents by Moscow is
either independent or a newspaper. That list consists only of the US government financed VOA
and RFE/RL and a number of websites and broadcasters that VOA and RFE/RL control.
Apart from that, the Russian "foreign agents" list is just a direct retaliation against
Washington for doing exactly the same thing to RT and Sputnik, who were forced to register as
foreign agents. Apparently the "freedom of the press" isn't so important when it applies to
Russian media organisations working in the USA.
Hillary Clinton "actually listening to the people"??? Nonsense.
Democrats lost because she didn't bother to listen to the concerns of the working class.
Instead, she demonized and ridiculed them. If Democrats don't return to their one-time base
in the working class, we will be doomed to more Donald Trumps and more massive transfers of
wealth from those to work for a living to the very rich.
As a lifetime progressive, I categorically reject the neoliberal political philosophy of
both Clinton and Obama. In addition to being morally wrong, it is foolish, because in
kicking out both the working class and progressives like me, they don't have enough votes
to win elections. I also reject lying in order to undo the will of the American people.
Russia-gate is, from the "evidence" given, total BS.
The will of those stinking (not a word I would use) undesirables at Walmart was to raise
their collective middle fingers at the elites who have abandoned them and thrown them under
the bus. They were voting against phony promises of hope and change. They were voting
against NAFTA and the TPP. And guess what: Plenty of them would have voted for Bernie
Sanders.
"... Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel. It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New World Order. ..."
"... Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a national security threat." Objective reality? ..."
"... The "Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged" elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college, ranked voting and more. ..."
"... "Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner, and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel. ..."
"... "The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead, Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump administration." ..."
"... Mueller Names Trump's Foreign 'Colluding' Power: Israel By Wayne Madsen ..."
"... Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course. ..."
Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel.
It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to
destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is
the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New
World Order.
China and Russia are only nominal adversaries in the world economy. They also
want to impoverish the majority of the world's population even at the cost of enriching some
individuals to the point of becoming gods. In a sense, this is what liberals have wanted, to
level the field that the poor people of the world exist on.
jaycee , December 14, 2017 at 2:26 pm
Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly
states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that
Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White
House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the
personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his
administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a
national security threat." Objective reality?
Colleen O'Brien , December 14, 2017 at 2:30 pm
All the layers of deceit, denial and distraction bode ill for the Democratic Party and
MSM. Thank you Robert Parry for standing up to all this disinformation & propaganda. The
"Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election
process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged"
elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college,
ranked voting and more.
Reforming our election process is the most important issue because what we have now and
what came before is because of the money which owns the politicians and who no longer
represent the American People! Nothing will change until we fix this!
Abe , December 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm
"Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than
just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting
American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner,
and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to
do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed
virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel.
"There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will
never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump,
Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from Israel
on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US Espionage Act.
Israel's 'Greek Chorus' of supporters in the US news media and Congress brought up the Logan
Act to minimize the damage caused by collusion between Israel's skink-like ambassador to the
UN Danny Danon, Netanyahu, Kushner, Flynn, Trump, and Haley to kill the resolution. If the
Logan Act had any enforcement teeth, it would have been used a long time ago to indict George
Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Paul Singer, and other pro-Israeli billionaire
influence-peddlers, who represent the interests of other nations and engage in their own
foreign policies.
"The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving
Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve
Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead,
Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations
located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the
Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for
Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump
administration."
Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will
inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental
reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe
the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the
accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false
accusation – without the slightest proof, of course.
Mild -ly - Facetious , December 14, 2017 at 5:29 pm
"... The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency. ..."
"... As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state" exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump. ..."
"... In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here." ..."
"... Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." ..."
"... The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President. ..."
"... After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with Russia. ..."
"... And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about "hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis. ..."
"... Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it. Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the Russia-gate Narrative. "] ..."
"... If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it could explain why claims from an unverified dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel, was added as a classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect Trump. ..."
"... That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate Trump. ..."
"... But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after ..."
"... Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated admissions that there was no "17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest. ..."
"... Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's curiosity. ..."
"... Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier. ..."
"... Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press would ask them, of course. ..."
"... That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi. ..."
"... "Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT question. ..."
"... Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries. ..."
"... Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal ideology. ..."
"... the most dubious thing was, of course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory ..."
"... So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere. Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially investigated. ..."
"... It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either. ..."
"... Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting. That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1. ..."
"... There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think? ..."
"... "Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC. the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works department in a 2010 DOJ report." Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever. ..."
"... Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today. ..."
"... Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill since. ..."
"... Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on. ..."
"... Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"), perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort. ..."
"... Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/ ..."
"... It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under banner headlines long ago. ..."
"... Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker? ..."
"... The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of influence. That is unacceptable to the empire. ..."
"... RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist, but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate. And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort. ..."
"... Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations? ..."
Exclusive: Taking on water from revealed FBI conflicts of interest, the foundering
Russia-gate probe – and its mainstream media promoters – are resorting to insults
against people who note the listing ship, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved
senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the
supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that
some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's
presidency.
Peter Strzok, who served as a Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, second in command of counterintelligence.
As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state"
exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior
FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two
high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as
protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as
unfit as Trump.
In one Aug. 6, 2016 text exchange, Page told Strzok: "Maybe you're meant to stay where you
are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace." At the end of that text, she
sent Strzok a link to a David Brooks
column in The New York Times, which concludes with the clarion call: "There comes a time
when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you're not in revolt, you're in cahoots.
When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in
shame."
Apparently after reading that stirring advice, Strzok replied, "And of course I'll try and
approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many
levels, not sure if that helps."
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, criticized
Strzok's boast that "I can protect our country at many levels." Jordan said: "this guy thought
he was super-agent James Bond at the FBI [deciding] there's no way we can let the American
people make Donald Trump the next president."
In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump
voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I
could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here."
Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at
the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference
to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug.
15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk."
Strzok added, "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before
you're 40."
It's unclear what strategy these FBI officials were contemplating to ensure Trump's defeat,
but the comments mesh with what an intelligence source told me after the 2016 election, that
there was a plan among senior Obama administration officials to use the allegations about
Russian meddling to block Trump's momentum with the voters and -- if elected -- to persuade
members of the Electoral College to deny Trump a majority of votes and thus throw the selection
of a new president into the House of Representatives under the rules of the Twelfth
Amendment .
The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State
Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral
College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of
Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President.
After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to
create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least
weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with
Russia.
In one of her text messages to Strzok, Page made reference to a possible Watergate-style
ouster of Trump, writing: "Bought all the president's men. Figure I needed to brush up on
watergate."
As a key feature in this oust-Trump effort, Democrats have continued to lie by claiming that
"all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred" in the assessment that Russia hacked the
Democratic emails last year on orders from President Vladimir Putin and then slipped them to
WikiLeaks to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.
That canard was used in the early months of the Russia-gate imbroglio to silence any
skepticism about the "hacking" accusation, and the falsehood was repeated again by a Democratic
congressman during Wednesday's hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
But the "consensus" claim was never true. In May 2017 testimony ,
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that the Jan. 6
"Intelligence Community Assessment" was put together by "hand-picked" analysts from only three
agencies: the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
Biased at the Creation
And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about
"hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you
that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis.
Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had
in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it.
Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would
almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance
of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see
Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the
Russia-gate Narrative. "]
If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it
could explain why claims from an unverified
dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian
intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow
hotel, was added as a
classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect
Trump.
Though Democrats and the Clinton campaign long denied financing the dossier – prepared
by ex-British spy Christopher Steele who claimed to rely on second- and third-hand information
from anonymous Russian contacts – it was revealed in
October 2017 that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign shared in the
costs, with the payments going to the "oppo" research firm, Fusion GPS, through the Democrats'
law firm, Perkins Coie.
That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who
talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has
acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate
Trump.
Bruce Ohr has since been demoted and Strzok was quietly removed from the Russia-gate
investigation last July although the reasons for these moves were not publicly explained at the
time.
Still, the drive for "another Watergate" to oust an unpopular – and to many insiders,
unfit – President remains at the center of the thinking among the top mainstream news
organizations as they have scrambled for Russia-gate "scoops" over the past year even
at the cost of making serious reporting errors .
For instance, last Friday, CNN -- and then CBS News and MSNBC -- trumpeted an email
supposedly sent from someone named Michael J. Erickson on Sept. 4, 2016, to Donald Trump Jr.
that involved WikiLeaks offering the Trump campaign pre-publication access to purloined
Democratic National Committee emails that WikiLeaks published on Sept. 13, nine days later.
Grasping for Confirmation
Since the Jan. 6 report alleged that WikiLeaks received the "hacked" emails from Russia -- a
claim that WikiLeaks and Russia deny -- the story seemed to finally tie together the notion
that the Trump campaign had at least indirectly colluded with Russia.
The full court filing was published on Mondoweiss a couple of days ago. We learn that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age, and that she was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who seems to have been Jane Doe #3. Allegedly, the shot was taken by Epstein. (Note: In what follows, the term NPA refers to non-prosecution agreement .)
Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred to as a "sex slave." Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 and 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on Epstein's private planes, and elsewhere.There's a third named participant in these doings, one Jean Luc Brunel, a close Epstein friend and a scout for various modelling agencies.The Daily Mail discloses that one of Epstein's, er, protegees was a woman named Johanna Sjoberg. Since the story links her to Prince Andrew, it is tempting suppose that she is the aforementioned Jane Doe #3. However, British newspapers have named another young woman, Virginia Roberts.
