"... The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences. ..."
"... The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. ..."
"... To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so? ..."
"... Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business. ..."
"... Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world. ..."
"... Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered. ..."
"... To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind. ..."
"... Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War. ..."
"... the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith. ..."
"... Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control . ..."
"... The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948. ..."
"... That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges ..."
"... Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?' ..."
"... Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. ..."
The political success of Russiagate lies in the vanishing of American history in favor of a
façade of liberal virtue. Posed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a
straight line can be drawn from efforts to undermine the decommissioning of the American war
economy in 1946 to the CIA's alliance with Ukrainian fascists in 2014. In 1945 the NSC
(National Security Council) issued a series of directives that gave logic and direction to the
CIA's actions during the Cold War. That these persist despite the 'fall of communism' suggests
that it was always just a placeholder in the pursuit of other objectives.
The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats,
and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the
American side of the nuclear arms race left former
Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as
assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be
put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the
Soviets more than the Americans did.
The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against
neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of
deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more
trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR
in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to
loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed
NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a
negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a
reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.
The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria
Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal,
nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have
used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists
subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. Furthermore, Steinem's
aggressive ignorance of the actual history of the CIA illustrates the liberal propensity to
conflate bourgeois dress and attitude with an imagined
gentility . To the
point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not
employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so?
On the American left, Russiagate is treated as a case of bad reporting, of official outlets
for government propaganda serially reporting facts and events that were subsequently disproved.
However, some fair portion of the American bourgeois, the PMC that acts in supporting roles for
capital, believes every word of it. Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American
fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time
that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the
Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly
fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.
Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers,
including former
Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human
beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin,
Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the
Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's
overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated
into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.
By the time that (Senator) John F. Kennedy claimed a U.S. 'missile gap' with the Soviets in
1958, the CIA was providing estimates of Soviet ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles),
that were
wildly inflated -- most likely provided to it by the Gehlen Organization. Once satellite
and U2 reconnaissance estimates became available, the CIA lowered its own to 120 Soviet ICBMs
when the actual number
was four . On the one hand, the Soviets really did have a nuclear weapons program. On the
other, it was a tiny fraction of what was being claimed. Bad reporting, unerringly on the side
of larger military budgets, appears to be the constant.
Under the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially
disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the '
Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to
labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in
political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to
have played a role in the murder of Che
Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi
concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered.
The historical sequence in the U.S. was WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, to an economy that
was heavily dependent on war production. The threatened decommissioning of the war economy in
1946 was first met with an
honest assessment of Soviet intentions -- the Soviets were moving infrastructure back into
Soviet territory as quickly as was practicable, then to the military budget-friendly claim that
they were putting resources in place to invade Europe. The result of the shift was that the
American Generals kept their power and the war industry kept producing materiel and weapons. By
1948 these weapons had come to include atomic bombs.
To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward
the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly
traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and
are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,'
adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear
arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons
non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.
What ties the Gehlen Organization to CIA estimates of Soviet nuclear weapons from 1948
– 1958 is 1) the Gehlen Organization was central to the CIA's intelligence operations
vis-à-vis the Soviets, 2) the CIA had limited alternatives to gather information on the
Soviets outside of the Gehlen Organization and 3) the senior leadership of the U.S. military
had
long demonstrated that it approved of exaggerating foreign threats when doing so enhanced
their power and added to their budgets. Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former
Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive
Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War.
Where this gets interesting is that American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was working for the Rand
Corporation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when estimates of Soviet ICBMs were being put
forward. JFK had run (in 1960) on a platform that included closing the Soviet – U.S. '
missile
gap .' The USAF (U.S. Air Force), charged with delivering nuclear missiles to their
targets, was estimating that the Soviets had 1,000 ICBMs. Mr. Ellsberg, who had limited
security clearance through his employment at Rand, was leaked the known number of Soviet ICBMs.
The Air Force was saying 1,000 Soviet ICBMs when the number confirmed by reconnaissance
satellites was four.
By 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA had shifted nominal control of the
Gehlen Organization to the BND, for whom Gehlen continued to work. Based on ongoing satellite
reconnaissance data, the CIA was busy lowering its estimates of Soviet nuclear capabilities.
Benjamin Schwarz, writing
for The Atlantic in 2013, provided an account, apparently informed by the CIA's lowered
estimates, where he placed the whole of the Soviet nuclear weapons program (in 1962) at roughly
one-ninth the size of the U.S. effort. However, given Ellsberg's known count of four Soviet
ICBMs at the time of the missile crisis, even Schwarz's ratio of 1:9 seems to overstate Soviet
capabilities.
Further per Schwarz's reporting, the Jupiter nuclear missiles that the U.S. had placed in
Italy prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis only made sense as first-strike weapons. This
interpretation is corroborated by Daniel Ellsberg , who argues
that the American plan was always to initiate the use of nuclear weapons (first strike). This
made JFK's posture of equally matched contestants in a geopolitical game of nuclear chicken
utterly unhinged. Should this be less than clear, because the U.S. had indicated its intention
to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing
Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be
taken in good faith.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military
spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the
election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was
repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them.
In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging
the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then
unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former
Baltic
states were brought under NATO's control .
The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of
fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically
elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing
the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC)
in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here .
The economic and military
annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2
. The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan
to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace
the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated
former Nazis on its payroll in 1948.
That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security
Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks
volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges.
Its near instantaneous adoption by
bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That
liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by
unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of
historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers
employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?'
The Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure Act came about in part because Nazi hunters kept coming across Nazi war
criminals living in the U.S. who told them they had been brought here and given employment by
the CIA, CIC, or some other division of the Federal government. If the people in these agencies
thought that doing so was justified, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't justified, why was it
done? Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical
ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the
upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this
move.Cue the Sex
Pistols .
The "no-fly zone" issue is covered in a second video suggested when this one almost
ends...It is also told that Obama opposed at first the destruction of Lybia, along with the
important participation of some NATO superpowers on basis of geopolitical interests and, of
course, looting of always...It was a coalition of the willing with assorted goals...althoughm
ainly benefitted the US in its cursade on the ME...
All these wars have happened to destroy kinda powerful nations ( competing
economic/military powers...), like Lybia in Africa and Yugoslavia in Europe on behalf of
others´hegemony...
Great video that everyone should see (especially clueless Americans) but it should've
included Obama's illegally turning a "no fly" Zone into a bombing campaign.
The UN had only authorized a "no fly" zone and Obama never sought authorization from
Congress for war.
Okay, I'll bite, Jackrabbit - sorry if I haven't followed your line of thinking on CIA and
Hillary ...wanting to elect Trump??? That really doesn't make sense to me. That would mean
everything about the really outrageous campaign against Trump's presidency has been
orchestrated so we chumps wouldn't guess they really were secretly rejoicing?
Sorry, I just don't buy it. But of course, I could be wrong. Who knows what dark deeds are
being secretly devised behind all these curtains of lies? (A good reason to suppose there is
a God who sees and who will someday reveal to us mortals what has really been going on. I
can't wait to find out.)
USA's shift to the Western Pacific (Australia) is taking shape. This withdrawal of
American troops and personnel from Germany points to the direction of European long-term
decline in importance, as it seems the USA is opting for a more aggressive, less in-depth
model against the Russian Federation. Either it believes the Russian Federation will fall
soon (after Putin's death) or it is giving up Europe altogether. Both scenarios imply in
Germany's (the EU) decline.
Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest
figures in the history of American politics" after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights
icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday.
Carlson, who also described the former president as "a greasy politician" for calling on
Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act and to eliminate the filibuster, which Obama described
as a relic of the Jim Crow era that disenfranchised Black Americans, in order to do so.
"Barack Obama, one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American
politics, used George Floyd's death at a funeral to attack the police," Carlson said before
showing a segment of Obama's remarks.
More willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration
By Jonathan Turley
July 27, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - The Washington
press corps seems engaged in a collective demonstration of the legal concept of willful
blindness, or deliberately ignoring the facts, following the release of yet another
declassified document which directly refutes prior statements about the investigation into
Russia collusion. The document shows that FBI officials used a national security briefing of
then candidate Donald
Trump and his top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire Hurricane, its code name
for the Russia investigation.
It is astonishing that the media refuses to see what is one of the biggest stories in
decades. The Obama administration targeted the campaign of the opposing party based on false
evidence. The media covered Obama administration officials ridiculing the suggestions of spying
on the Trump campaign and of improper conduct with the Russia investigation. When Attorney
General William Barr told the Senate last year that he believed spying did occur, he was
lambasted in the media, including by James Comey and others involved in that investigation. The
mocking "wow" response of the fired FBI director received extensive coverage.
The new document shows that, in summer 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka briefed Trump campaign
advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie over national security issues, standard practice
ahead of the election. It had a discussion of Russian interference. But this was different. The
document detailing the questions asked by Trump and his aides and their reactions was filed
several days after that meeting under Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, the FBI
investigation of Flynn. The two FBI officials listed who approved the report are Kevin
Clinesmith and Peter Strzok.
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Clinesmith is the former FBI lawyer responsible for the FISA surveillance conducted on
members of the Trump campaign. He opposed Trump and sent an email after the election declaring
"viva the resistance." He is now under review for possible criminal charges for altering a FISA
court filing. The FBI used Trump adviser Carter Page as the basis for the original FISA
application, due to his contacts with Russians. After that surveillance was approved, however,
federal officials discredited the collusion allegations and noted that Page was a CIA asset.
Clinesmith had allegedly changed the information to state that Page was not working for the
CIA.
Strzok is the FBI agent whose violation of FBI rules led Justice Department officials to
refer him for possible criminal charges. Strzok did not hide his intense loathing of Trump and
famously referenced an "insurance policy" if Trump were to win the election. After FBI
officials concluded there was no evidence of any crime by Flynn at the end of 2016, Strzok
prevented the closing of the investigation as FBI officials searched for any crime that might
be used to charge the incoming national security adviser.
Documents show Comey briefed President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on the
investigation shortly before the inauguration of Trump. When Comey admitted the communications
between Flynn and Russian officials appeared legitimate, Biden reportedly suggested using the
Logan Act, a law widely seen as unconstitutional and never been used to successfully convict a
single person, as an alternative charge against Flynn. The memo contradicts eventual claims by
Biden that he did not know about the Flynn investigation. Let us detail some proven but mostly
unseen facts.
First, the Russia collusion allegations were based in large part on the dossier funded by
the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Clinton campaign repeatedly
denied paying for the dossier until after the election, when it was confronted with irrefutable
evidence that the money had been buried among legal expenditures. As New York Times reporter
Maggie Haberman wrote, "Folks involved in funding this lied about it and with sanctimony for a
year."
Second, FBI agents had warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have been used by
Russian intelligence to plant false information to disrupt the election. His source for the
most serious allegations claims that Steele misrepresented what he had said and that it was
little more than rumors that were recast by Steele as reliable intelligence.
Third, the Obama administration had been told that the basis for the FISA application was
dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the investigation, and then someone leaked its
existence to the media. Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times ran
a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at the account as misleading and
inaccurate. His early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in
contact with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were turning into a
frenzy that would last years.
Fourth, the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and inspectors general found no
evidence of collusion or knowing contact between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. What
inspectors general did find were false statements or possible criminal conduct by Comey and
others. While unable to say it was the reason for their decisions, they also found statements
of animus against Trump and his campaign by the FBI officials who were leading the
investigation. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified he never would have
approved renewal of the FISA surveillance and encouraged further investigation into such
bias.
Finally, Obama and Biden were aware of the investigation, as were the administration
officials who publicly ridiculed Trump when he said there was spying on his campaign. Others,
like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, declared they had evidence of collusion
but never produced it. Countless reporters, columnists, and analysts still continue to deride,
as writer Max Boot said it, the spinning of "absurd conspiracy theories" about how the FBI
"supposedly spied on the Trump campaign."
Willful blindness has its advantages. The media covered the original leak and the collusion
narrative, despite mounting evidence that it was false. They filled hours of cable news shows
and pages of print with a collusion story discredited by the FBI. Virtually none of these
journalists or experts have acknowledged that the collusion leaks were proven false, let alone
pursue the troubling implications of national security powers being used to target the
political opponents of an administration. But in Washington, success often depends not on what
you see but what you can unsee.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington
University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley . - "
Source " -
The Deep state coup attempt (sometimes called the soft coup or the
"insurance policy" ) was an effort by high-level Obama administration intelligence
community officials and holdovers to sabotage the agenda of President Donald Trump , remove him
from power, and hide the illegal actions of the Obama administration.
Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, also goes by Tanisha Guahar, is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General
(DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security
Division (NSD). Gauhar is a FISA
lawyer. Tash was at the DOJ since 2001, and she formerly served as assistant counsel and chief of
operations in what was then called the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. She worked for
DAG Rosenstein as she did for DAG Sally Yates. Tash Gauhar was the DAG's executor and enforcer
for national security. Tashina Gauhar was/is best friends with Lisa Page . Tashina is reported to have attempted
to get access to highly compartmentalized NSA information, and lied about being an appropriately
cleared recipient.
Guahar is said to have been removed from her position in charge of FISA applications
immediately after IG Michael Horowitz submitted his first draft
report to Attorney General Bill
Barr for classification review. Gauhar now reportedly works for Boeing . [1]
She is the DOJ/FBI lawyer at the heart of the Clinton-email investigation; the DOJ/FBI lawyer
hired by Eric Holder at
his firm and later at the DOJ; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who was transferred to the Clinton probe; the
DOJ/FBI lawyer at the epicenter of the Weiner laptop issues, the only one from MYE who spoke to
New York; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who constructs the FISA applications on behalf of Main Justice; .
just happens to be the same DOJ/FBI lawyer recommending to AG Jeff Sessions that he recuse
himself. Tashina Gauhar -
Conservapedia
Keep hearing these things about Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, head of DoJ National Security
Division seems to always be involved with all these things -- Clinton Emails, DNC/Weiner,
Sessions recusal, Mueller liaison at DoJ, FISA warrants.
27 JULY 2020The Curious Silence of the Traitors by Larry C Johnson
Remember when John O. Brennan--Obama's CIA Director--and disgraced FBI agent, Peter Strzok,
were regularly spewing anti-Trump diatribes on Twitter? Well, Strzok went silent on 11 July
2020 and Brennan did the same a week later (18 July 2020). I do not think that is a
coincidence.
I have now heard from three separate sources that John Durham will have plea deals and/or
indictments before 1 September 2020. Two of the first heads to roll likely will be lying lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith , who deliberately withheld exculpatory from a FISA application to spy on
Carter Page, and lover boy, Peter Strzok.
And then there is the retarded fool, John Brennan, who fancies himself as the Mozart of the
Intelligence Community. Sorry John, you do not even qualify to clean Salieri's toliet. Until 9
days ago, John was a regular tweeter hurling foul invectives at Donald Trump.
Here are two examples of their July 11 screeds:
Trump's commutation of Stone apparently pushed them over the edge. Boo hoo. But since then
it has been crickets from these two chowderheads. Has the past caught up with them? At least in
Strzok's case he has retained legal representation. No indicator yet about Brennan. A competent
lawyer would understand that tweets, especially those attacking the Trump Administration, is a
potentially dangerous, self-incriminating activity.
More than two weeks of silence from Strzok and one week from Brennan does not appear to be a
mere instance of having nothing to say. Lack of substance has not prevented these two buffoons
from shooting their mouths off in the past. Is the day of reckoning nigh?
I sure hope so, but I'm not optimistic.
The swamp will not go willingly and Barr, for all his comments about "justice", is still a
member in good standing.
Look at how the FBI is still out of control, hiding and shredding documents and the "career"
lawyers are still operating the DOJ as an arm of the Democrat party.
How long did Martha Stewart end up in the slammer? How much time did the Varsity Blues
parents get in the Big House? People still do go to jail in this country for messing around
with the facts.
Are Brennan and Strozk immune after trying to take down a sitting President, but trying to
get your stupid kid into USC by cheating gets a prolonged close encounter with Bubba?
Surely, we don't have two systems of justice. One for government employees and one for the
rest of us. I gather one does not "plea bargain" unless there is a case. Though Gen Flynn can
still beg to differ with that presumption. Surely we are not intro framing suspects, even
though their possible charge was framing the President.
Does the DOJ have clean hands at last, on Russiagate. And will a possible plea bargain
finally lead to loss of their security clearances? And pensions. Did Clapper flip.
Why was the "essential question" to only investigate the Trump campaign.
Facts in evidence clearly show Clinton was the one getting the Russians to interfere in
the 2016 campaign. How is her Twitter account doing right now. Did she too drop into this
sudden cone of silence?
Keep hearing these things about Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, head of DoJ National Security
Division seems to always be involved with all these things -- Clinton Emails, DNC/Weiner,
Sessions recusal, Mueller liaison at DoJ, FISA warrants.
Thanks for the write up Larry. The sounds of silence are deafening. The silence of riots
apparently being news, until this instant, when Congressman Nadler was forced to see five
minutes of it via video in the hearing room on Congress, to which he chastised the ranking
member for not giving him 48 hours warning that truth would be shown. I wonder what antifa's
masters have in store for us for the rest of the week, given their narrative is losing them
voter support.
Strzok has a book coming out, "Compromised: Counterintelligence and the Threat of Donald
J. Trump". I'd rather see him sweating bullets before the Sep 8 release. Thanks Larry!
Once behind bars, Strzok can't profit from his crime so this must be a frantic
ghost-written doozie. And all Russia, Russia, Russia again. Talk about an issue that
generates zero traction.
I think we can all write the plot upfront (OrangemanBad), upon with he will hang the most
gauzy of facts Too bad he could not get Team Mueller to agree with him when it counted.
I mourn the trees sacrificed to his tawdry cause. Maintaining a wife and mistress at the
same time however, does add up.
Turkey is currently involved in quite a few international military conflicts -- both against
its own neighbors such as Greece, Armenia, Iraq, Syria and Cyprus, and against other nations
such as Libya and Yemen. These actions by Turkey suggest that Turkey's foreign policy is
increasingly destabilizing not only several nations, but the region as well.
In addition, the Erdogan regime has been militarily targeting Syria and Iraq, sending its
Syrian mercenaries to Libya to seize Libyan oil and continuing, as usual, to bully Greece.
Turkey's regime is also now provoking ongoing violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_1565758762 NOW PLAYING
Erdogan leads first Muslim prayer after Hagia Sophia mosque reconversion
Istanbul's Hagia Sophia reconversion to a mosque, 'provocation to civilised world', Greece
says
Turkish top court revokes Hagia Sophia's museum status, 'tourists should still be allowed
in'
Erdogan: Interference over Hagia Sophia 'direct attack on our sovereignty'
Libya's GNA says Egypt's warning on Sirte offensive a 'declaration of war'
Erdogan says 'agreements' reached with Trump on Libya
What Turkish Election Results Mean for the Lira
Erdogan Sparks Democracy Concerns in Push for Istanbul Vote Rerun
Since July 12, Azerbaijan has launched a series of cross-border attacks against Armenia's
northern Tavush region in skirmishes that have resulted
in the deaths of at least four Armenian soldiers and 12 Azerbaijani ones. After Azerbaijan
threatened to launch missile attacks on Armenia's Metsamor nuclear plant on July 16, Turkey
offered military assistance to Azerbaijan.
"Our armed unmanned aerial vehicles, ammunition and missiles with our experience, technology
and capabilities are at Azerbaijan's service,"
said İsmail Demir, the head of Presidency of Defense Industries, an affiliate of the
Turkish Presidency.
One of Turkey's main targets also seems to be Greece. The Turkish military is targeting
Greek territorial waters yet again. The Greek newspaper Kathimerini
reported :
"There have been concerns over a possible Turkish intervention in the East Med in a bid to
prevent an agreement on the delineation of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between Greece
and Egypt which is currently being discussed between officials of the two countries."
Turkey's choice of names for its gas exploration ships are also a giveaway. The name of the
main ship that Turkey is using for seismic "surveys" of the Greek continental shelf is
Oruç Reis , (1474-1518), an admiral of the Ottoman Empire who often raided the
coasts of Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean that were still controlled by Christian
powers. Other exploration and drilling vessels Turkey uses or is planning to use in Greece's
territorial waters are named after Ottoman sultans who targeted Cyprus and Greece in bloody
military invasions. These include the drilling ship
Fatih "the conqueror" or Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who invaded Constantinople in 1453; the
drilling ship
Yavuz , "the resolute", or Sultan Selim I, who headed the Ottoman Empire during the
invasion of Cyprus in 1571; and
Kanuni , "the lawgiver" or Sultan Suleiman, who invaded parts of eastern Europe as well as
the Greek island of Rhodes.
Turkey's move in the Eastern Mediterranean came in early July, shortly after the country had
turned Hagia Sophia, once the world's greatest Greek Cathedral, into a mosque. Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan then
linked Hagia Sophia's conversion to a pledge to "liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque" in
Jerusalem.
On July 21, the tensions arose again following Turkey's announcement that it plans to
conduct seismic research in parts of the Greek continental shelf in an area of sea between
Cyprus and Crete in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.
"Turkey's plan is seen in Athens as a dangerous escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean,
prompting Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to warn that European Union sanctions could follow
if Ankara continues to challenge Greek sovereignty," Kathimerini
reported on July 21.
Here is a short list of other countries where Turkey is also militarily involved:
In Libya , Turkey has been increasingly involved in the country's civil war. Associated
Press reported on July 18:
"Turkey sent between 3,500 and 3,800 paid Syrian fighters to Libya over the first three
months of the year, the U.S. Defense Department's inspector general concluded in a new
report, its first to detail Turkish deployments that helped change the course of Libya's
war.
"The report comes as the conflict in oil-rich Libya has escalated into a regional proxy
war fueled by foreign powers pouring weapons and mercenaries into the country."
Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led to
the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country, the current
population of which is around 6.5 million, has been split
between two rival governments. The UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), has been led
by Prime Minister Fayez al Sarraj. Its rival, the Libyan National Army (LNA), has been led by
Libyan military officer, Khalifa Haftar.
Backed by Turkey, the GNA
said on July 18 that it would recapture Sirte, a gateway to Libya's main oil terminals, as
well as an LNA airbase at Jufra.
Egypt, which backs the LNA,
announced , however, that if the GNA and Turkish forces tried to seize Sirte, it would send
troops into Libya. On July 20, the Egyptian parliament
gave approval to a possible deployment of troops beyond its borders "to defend Egyptian
national security against criminal armed militias and foreign terrorist elements."
Yemen is another country on which Turkey has apparently set its sights. In a recent video ,
Turkey-backed Syrian mercenaries fighting on behalf of the GNA in Libya, and aided by local
Islamist groups, are seen saying, "We are just getting started. The target is going to be
Gaza." They also state that they want to take on Egyptian President Sisi and to go to
Yemen.
"Turkey's growing presence in Yemen," The Arab Weekly reported
on May 9, "especially in the restive southern region, is fuelling concern across the region
over security in the Gulf of Aden and the Bab al-Mandeb.
"These concerns are further heightened by reports indicating that Turkey's agenda in Yemen
is being financed and supported by Qatar via some Yemeni political and tribal figures
affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In Syria , Turkey-backed jihadists continue occupying the northern parts of the country. On
July 21, Erdogan
announced that Turkey's military presence in Syria would continue. "Nowadays they are
holding an election, a so-called election," Erdogan said of a parliamentary election on July 19
in Syria's government-controlled regions, after nearly a decade of civil war. "Until the Syrian
people are free, peaceful and safe, we will remain in this country."
Additionally, Turkey's incursion into the Syrian city of Afrin, created a particularly grim
situation for the local Yazidi population:
"As a result of the Turkish incursion to Afrin," the Yazda organization
reported on May 29, "thousands of Yazidis have fled from 22 villages they inhabited prior
to the conflict into other parts of Syria, or have migrated to Lebanon, Europe, or the
Kurdistan Region of Iraq... "
"Due to their religious identity, Yazidis in Afrin are suffering from targeted harassment
and persecution by Turkish-backed militant groups. Crimes committed against Yazidis include
forced conversion to Islam, rape of women and girls, humiliation and torture, arbitrary
incarceration, and forced displacement. The United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in its 2020 annual report confirmed that Yazidis and Christians
face persecution and marginalization in Afrin.
"Additionally, nearly 80 percent of Yazidi religious sites in Syria have been looted,
desecrated, or destroyed, and Yazidi cemeteries have been defiled and bulldozed."
In Iraq , Turkey has been carrying out military operations for years. The last one was
started in mid-June. Turkey's Defense Ministry
announced on June 17 that the country had "launched a military operation against the PKK"
(Kurdistan Workers' Party) in northern Iraq after carrying out a series of airstrikes. Turkey
has named its assaults "Operation Claw-Eagle" and "Operation Claw-Tiger".
The Yazidi, Assyrian
Christian and Kurdish
civilians have been terrorized by the bombings. At least five civilians have been killed in
the air raids, according to
media reports . Human Rights Watch has also issued a
report , noting that a Turkish airstrike in Iraq "disregards civilian loss."
Given Turkey's military aggression in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Armenia, among others, and its
continued occupation of northern Cyprus, further aggression, especially against Greece, would
not be unrealistic. Turkey's desire to invade Greece is not exactly a secret. Since at least
2018, both the Turkish government and opposition parties have openly been calling
for capturing the Greek islands in the Aegean, which they falsely claim belong to
Turkey.
If such an attack took place, would the West abandon Greece?
Gaius Konstantine , 10 hours ago
If such an attack took place, it will get real messy, real fast. The Turkish military is
only partially adept at fighting irregular forces that lack heavy weaponry while Turkey has
absolute control of the sky. Even then, the recent performance of Turkish forces has been
lacklustre for "the 2nd largest Army in NATO".
Turkey should understand that a fight with Greece will mean that the advantages she
enjoyed in her recent adventures will not be there. Nor should Turkey look to the past and
expect an easy victory, the Greek Army will not be marching deep into Anatolia this time,
(which was the wrong type of war for Greece).
So what happens if they actually take it to war?
The larger Greek islands are well defended, they won't be taken, but defending the smaller
ones is hard and Turkey will probably grab some of those. The Greeks, who have absolute
control and dominance in the Aegean will do several things. Turkish naval and air bases along
the Aegean coastline will be attacked as will the bosphorus bridges, (those bridges WILL go
down). The Greek army, which is positioned well, will blitz into eastern Thrace and stop
outside Istanbul where they will dig in and shell the city, thereby causing the civilians to
flee and clogging up the tunnels to restrict military re-enforcement.
That's Greece acting alone, a position will be achieved where any captured islands will be
traded for eastern Thrace. Should the French intervene, (even if it's just air and naval
forces), it gets a lot more interesting.
The mighty Turkish fleet was just met by the entire Greek navy in the latest stand-off, it
was enough to cause Turkey to reconsider her options. There will be no Ottoman empire 2.0
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
The Greeks need their navy for surgically precise attacks against Turkey's navy. Every
island, especially the large ones are unsinkable aircraft carriers. No one has mentioned in
any article that Turkey's navy is functioning with less than minimum required personnel. No
one has mentioned that their air force is flying with Pakistani pilots. The only way Turks
will land on Greek uninhabited islands is only if they are ship wrecked and that for a very
very short period of time. Turkey's population is composed of 25% Kurds... that will also be
very interesting to see once they awaken from their hibernation and realize their great and
holy goal of Kurdistan. Egypt will not waste the opportunity to join in to devastate whatever
Turkish navy remains. Serbian patriots will not allow the opportunity to go to waste and will
attack Kosovo and indirectly Albania composed primarily of Turkish descendants... realize the
coverage lately of how the US did wrong for supporting these degenerate Muslim
Albanians.
I have no doubt Greeks will make it to Aghia Sophia but will not pass Bosporus. The result
will be a Treaty that is a hybrid of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Sevron. If the
Albanians decide to support the Turks by attacking Greeks in the North and in Northern
Epeirus they should expect annexation of Northern Epeirus to Greece. Erdogan bases his
bullying on Trump's incompetences and false friendship. This is why America is non existent
in any of these regions. If Trump wins the election it will be a long war and very
destabilized for the region. If Trump loses the war will be much much quicker. The outcome
will remain the same. The Russians will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Israel will
not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Egypt will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area.
Not even European Union. UK is the questionable.
The West has Turkey's back otherwise the Turkish currency the Turkish Lira would have
collapsed by now under attacks from the City of London Freemasonic Talmudic bankers.
Remember what happened to the Russian Rouble when Russia annexed Crimea?
The Fed and the ECB in cahoots with the usual Talmudic interests, are supporting the
Turkish Lira and propping up the Erdogan regime.
There is NO OTHER explanation.
The Turks have NO foreign currency reserves, no net positive euro nor dollar reserves.
Their tourism industry and main hard currency generator has COLLAPSED (hotels are 95 percent
empty). The Turkish central bank has resorted to STEALING Turkish citizens'
dollar-denominated bank accounts via raising Turkish Banks' foreign currency reserve
requirements which the Turkish central bank SPENDS upon receipt to buy TLs and prop up the
Turkish Lira.
This is utter MADNESS and FRAUD and LARCENY.
London-based currency traders would be all over the Turkish Lira and/or Turkish bonds and
stocks by now UNLESS they had been instructed by the Fed and the ECB or the Talmudic bankers
that own and control both, to lay off the Turkish Lira.
Despite the noise on TV or the press,
BY DEFINITION,
Erdogan and the Turks are only doing the bidding of the TRIBE hence Erdogan has the
blessing and the protection of the people ZH censors the name.
BUT
You know how those parasites treat their host and what the inevitable outcome is,
right?
Indeed,
Erdogan and the Turks are being set up to be thrown under the proverbial bus at the
appropriate time.
The Neo-Ottoman Sultan has inadvertently set up his (ill begotten) country for eventual
destruction and partition. The Kurds will get a piece of it. Who knows, maybe even the
Armenians will be able to recover some bits of their ancient homeland.
Greeks in Constantinople? Nothing is impossible thanks to the hubris and chutzpah of
Erdogan who is purported to have "Amish" blood himself.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
Good for the UK that they have left the EU.
Apart from the Greeks, who would be fighting for their lives and homeland, the only EU
forces capable of acting are the French. German does not have an operative army or navy;
Italy, Spain and Portugal have neglected their armed forces for many years, and the Baltic
and Eastern Nations are unlikely to want to get involved. The Netherlands have very good
forces but not many of them.
MPJones , 7 hours ago
We can live in hope. Erdogan certainly seems to need external enemies to hold the country
together. Let us also hope that Erdogan's adventurism finally wakes up Europe to the reality
of the ongoing Muslim invasion so that the necessary Muslim repatriation can get going
without the bloodshed which Islam's current strategy in Europe will otherwise inevitably lead
to.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
The Turkish army is a conscript army. They will need to be whipped up with religious
fervour to perform. Otherwise they will look after their own skins.
But remember that the Turks put up a good defence in the Dardanelles in the First World
War.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
What do you expect? He killed Russian fighter pilots and he survived, this empowers
terrorists like him. Those pilots were the only ones at that time fighting ISIS. May they
RIP.
Max.Power , 9 hours ago
Turkey is in a "proud" group of failed empires surrounded by nations they severely abused
less than 100 years ago.
Other two are Germany and Japan. Any military aggression from their side will be met with
rage by a coalition of nations.
US position will be irrelevant at this point, because local historical grievances will
overweight anything else.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
"Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led
to the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country..."
Kinda gave yourself away there. The coordinated assault on Libya by the US, Britain,
France, and their Al-CiA-da allies on the ground resulted in the torture, sodomizing, and
murder of Gaddafi, as well as his son and grandchildren killed in bombings by the US.
Also, let's not forget that Turkey is still in NATO, and their actions in Syria were
alongside the US regime and terrorist proxies labeled "moderate rebels". The same terrorists
originally used in Libya, then shipped to destroy Syria, now flown back to Libya. The attempt
to paint all of those things as Turkey's actions alone is not honest.
When Turkey isn't in NATO anymore, let me know.
TheZeitgeist , 10 hours ago
Don't forget that Hiftar guy Turks are fighting in Libya was a CIA toadie living in
Virginia for a decade before they gave him his "chance" to among other things become a client
of the Russians apparently. Flustercluck of the 1st order everywhere one looks.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
Then they put on this whole production where it's the CIA guy or the terrorist puppet
regime they installed, so that the rulers win regardless of the outcome. The victims are
those caught up in their sick game.
GalustGulbenkyan , 9 hours ago
Turkish population has been recently getting ****** due to the economic contractions and
devaluation of the Lira. Once Turkey starts fighting against a real army the Turks will
realize that they are going to be ****** by larger dildos. In 1990's they sent thousands of
volunteers to Nagorno Karabagh to fight against irregular Armenian forces and we know how
that ended for them. Greeks and Egyptians are not the Kurds. Erdogan is a lot of hot air and
empty threats. You can't win wars with Modern drones which even Armenians have learned how to
jam and shoot down with old 1970's soviet tech.
Guentzburgh , 5 hours ago
Greece should be aligned with Russia, EU and USA are a bad choice that Greece will
regret.
Greece needs to pivot towards Russia which will open huge opportunities for both
countries
KoalaWalla , 6 hours ago
Greeks are bitter and prideful - they would not only defend themselves if attacked but
would counter attack to reclaim land they've lost. But, I don't know that Erdogan is clever
enough to realize this.
60s Man , 9 hours ago
Turkey is America's Mini Me.
currency , 3 hours ago
Erdogan is in Trouble at home declining economy and his radical conservative/Thug type
policies. Turks are moving away from him except the hard core radicals and conservatives. He
and his family are Corrupt - they rule with threats and use of THUGS. Sense his constant wars
may be over stretched Time for a Turkish Spring.
Time for US, Nato and etc. to say goodbye to this THUG
OrazioGentile , 7 hours ago
Turkey seems to be on a warpath to imploding from within. Erdogan looks like a desperate
despot with a failing economy, failing political clout, and failing modernization of his
Country. Like any despot, he has to rally the troops or he will literally be a dead man
walking.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
The world fears loud obnoxious tyrants and Erdogan is the loudest tyrant since Hitler.
Remember how countries pandered to Hitler early on? Same thing is happening with Erdogan.
This terrorist will do a lot more damage than he has already before the world wakes
up.
By the time Hitler was done, 70 million people were dead, what will Erdogan cause?
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
Turkey is not Germany. Not by far. Erdogan may be a bigger lunatic than Hitler, but Turkey
is not Germany of the 30's. Without military equipment/parts from Germany, Italy, Spain,
France, USA, and UK he cannot even build a nail. Economies are very integrated; he will be
disposed of very very quickly. He has been warned. He is running out of lives.
NewNeo , 9 hours ago
You should research a lot more. Turkey is a lot more power thank Nazi Germany of the
1930's. Turkey currently have brand new US made equipment. It even houses the nuclear arsenal
of NATO.
You should probably look at information from stratfor and George Friedman to give you a
better understanding.
The failed coupe a few years ago was because the lunatic had gone off the reservation and
was seen as a threat to the region. Obviously the bankers thought it in their benefit to keep
him going and tipped him off.
OliverAnd , 8 hours ago
Clearly the lockdown has hindered your already illiteracy. Turkey has modern US equipment.
Germany did not need US equipment. They made their own equipment; in fact both the US and
USSR used Grrman old tech to develop future tech.
The coup was designed by Erdogan to bring himself to full power. When this is all done he
will be responsible for millions of Turkish lives; after all he is not a Turk but a Muslim
Pontian.
For much of the past year Trump has caused angst among allies by maintaining a consistent
position that Russia should be invited back into the Group of Seven (G7), making it as it was
prior to 2014, the G-8.
Russia had been essentially booted from the summit as relations with the Obama White House
broke down over the Ukraine crisis and the Crimea issue. Trump
said in August 2019 that Obama had been "outsmarted" by Putin.
But as recently as May when Germany followed by other countries rebuffed Trump's plans to
host the G7 at Camp David, Trump blasted the "very outdated group of countries"
and expressed that he planned to invite four additional non-member nations, mostly notably
Russia .
Germany has rejected a proposal by U.S. President Donald Trump to invite Russian President
Vladimir Putin back into the Group of Seven (G7) most advanced economies , German Foreign
Minister Heiko Maas said in a newspaper interview published on Monday.
Interestingly enough the Ukraine and Crimea issues were raised in the interview: "But Maas
told Rheinische Post that he did not see any chance for allowing Russia back into the G7 as
long as there was no meaningful progress in solving the conflict in Crimea as well as in
eastern Ukraine," according to the report.
"... By Dr. Karin Kneissl , who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs between 2017-2019. She is currently writing her book 'Die Mobilitätswende' (Mobility in transition), to be published this summer. ..."
"... "humanitarian corridor" ..."
"... "good opposition" ..."
"... "humanitarian war," ..."
"... "worst mistake." ..."
"... "geopolitical commission." ..."
"... "community of the good ones" ..."
"... "Friends of Libya," ..."
"... "good opposition" ..."
"... "exclusive economic zone" ..."
"... "other actors" ..."
"... "mare nostrum" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
By
Dr.
Karin Kneissl
, who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs
between 2017-2019. She is currently writing her book 'Die Mobilitätswende' (Mobility in transition), to be published this
summer.
A confrontation between the two NATO states France and Turkey continues to trouble the Mediterranean region; Egyptian forces
are mobilizing. And many other military players are continuing operations there.
In March 2011, during a hectic weekend, the French delegation to the UN
Security Council managed to convince all other member States of the Council to support Resolution 1973. It was all about a
"humanitarian
corridor"
for Benghazi, which was considered the
"good opposition"
by the
government of Nicolas Sarkozy. One of his whisperers was the controversial philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, who supported a
French intervention. Levy, fond of the
"humanitarian war,"
found a congenial
partner in Sarkozy.
France was at root of crisis
Muammar Gaddafi had been received generously with all his tents in the park of
the Elysée, but suddenly he was coined the bad guy. The same had happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It was not the Arab
dictator who had changed; it was his usefulness to his allies. The Libyans had been distributing huge amounts of money in
Europe, in particular in Rome and Paris at various levels. In certain cases they knew too much. Plus, the Libyans had been
protecting the southern border of the Mediterranean for the European Union.
So, the French started the war in 2011, took the British on board, which made
the entire adventure look a bit like a replay of the Suez intervention of 1956, the official end of European colonial
interventions. A humanitarian intervention changed into regime change on day two, which was March 20, 2011. Various UN
Security Council members felt trapped by the French.
The US was asked to help, with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
many other advisers in favor of joining that war. President Obama, however, was reluctant but, in the end, he gave in. In one
of his last interviews while still in the White House, Obama stated that the aftermath of the war in Libya was his
"worst
mistake."
Libya ever since has mostly remained a dossier in the hands of administrative
officials in Washington, but not on the top presidential agenda anymore. This practice has been slightly shifting in the past
weeks. US President Donald Trump and France's Emmanuel Macron had a phone conversation on how to deescalate the situation
there. Trump also spoke on that very topic with Turkish President Recep T. Erdogan. Paris supports General Haftar in his war
against the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord, which is also supported by the European Union, in theory
The triggering momentum for the current rise in tensions was a naval clash
between French- and Turkish-supported vessels. Both nations are NATO members, and an internal alliance investigation is
underway. But France decided to pull out of the NATO naval operation that enforces the Libya arms embargo, set up during the
high-level Berlin conference on Libya in mid-January 2020. Without the French vessels it will be even more toothless than its
critics already deem it. This very initiative on Libya was the first test for the new European commission headed by Ursula von
der Leyen and claiming to be a
"geopolitical commission."
The EU strives to speak
the language of power but keeps failing in Libya, where two members, namely Italy and France, are pursuing very different
goals. Rome is anxious about migration while Paris cares more about the terrorist threat. But both have an interest in
commodities.
When Gaddafi was reintegrated in the
"community
of the good ones"
in early 2004 after a curious British legal twisting on the Lockerbie attack of December 1988, a
bonanza for oil and gas concessions started. The Italian energy company ENI and BP were among the first to have a big foot in
the door. I studied some of those contracts and asked myself why companies were ready to accept such terms. The answer was
maybe in the then rise in the oil price of oil and the proximity of Libya to the European market.
Interestingly, in September 2011, the very day of the opening ceremony of the
Paris conference dubbed
"Friends of Libya,"
a secret oil deal for the French
company Total was published by the French daily Libération. The
"good opposition"
had
promised the French an interesting range of oil concessions. Oil production continuously fell with the rise of the war,
attracting sponsors, militias and smugglers from all horizons. The situation in Libya has since been called 'somalization,'
but it would become even worse, since many more regional powers got involved in Libya than ever was the case in hunger-ridden
Somalia.
In exchange for its military assistance, Turkey recently gained access to
exploration fields off Libya's shores. Ankara had identified an
"exclusive economic
zone"
with the government in Tripoli, which disregards the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Actually, Israel made the
same bilateral demarcation with Cyprus about ten years ago, when Noble Energy started its delineation of blocs in the Levant
Basin. So Turkey is infringing on Greek and Cypriot territorial waters, while President Macron keeps reminding his EU
colleagues of the
"other actors"
in the Mediterranean Sea. Alas, it is nobody's
"mare
nostrum"
as it was 2,000 years ago in the Roman era. In principle, all states which have ratified the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea should simply comply with their legal obligations.
The crucial question remains: who has which leverage to de-escalate? Is it the
US President, who seemingly has acted more wisely on certain issues in recent times? Or will Russian and Turkish diplomacy be
able to negotiate and implement a truce? The tightrope-walk diplomacy between these last two countries is a most interesting
example of classical diplomacy: interest-based and focused; able to conduct hard-core relations even in times of direct
military confrontation and assassinations (remember the Russian Ambassador Karlov, shot by his Turkish bodyguard in Ankara in
December 2016?).
Meanwhile, yet another actor could move in to complicate everything even more.
On July 20, the Egyptian parliament voted unanimously for the deployment of the national army outside its borders, thereby
taking the risk of direct confrontation with Turkey in Libya. Egyptian troops would be mobilized in support of the eastern
forces of General Khalifa Haftar. Furthermore, Cairo would thereby compete even more obviously with Algeria, spending a
fortune on military control of its border with Libya. Algeria in the past could rely on US support in the region, but with the
gradual decline in US engagement in that part of the world, the country faces a fairly existential crisis.
There are currently two powers, among those involved in Libya, that can still
contain the next stage of a decade of proxy wars started by a French philosopher and various EU oil interests: Russia and the
USA.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Quizblorg
48 minutes ago
Does anything here make sense? No, because France this, Italy that is not how the world is run. The parties
involved here go far beyond countries. Also no mention of Saudi-Arabia/Israel. Who engineered the "Arab
Spring"?
"... International law is simply a weapon for the empire when it is invoked by it, and it is a useless farce for those the empire opposes. ..."
"... Interesting, but how is it possible to prosecute the US when it already dominates the world? If Hitler and the Germans had won the war there wouldn't have been a Nuremberg Trial. ..."
Editor's Note: As the United States approaches the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion,
much of the commentary is focusing on the Bush administration's "incompetence" in prosecuting
the war -- the failure to coimnit enough troops, the decision to disband the old Iraqi army
without adequate plans for training a new one, the highhandedness of the U.S. occupation.
But what about the legal and moral questions aiising from the unprovoked invasion of Iraq?
Should George W. Bush and his top aides be held accountable for violating the laws against
aggressive war that the United States and other Western nations promulgated in punishing senior
Nazis after World War II? Do the Nuremberg precedents that prohibit one nation from invading
another apply to Bush and American officials -- or are they somehow immune? Put bluntly, should
Bush and his inner circle face a war-crimes tiibunal for the tens of thousands of deaths in
Iraq?
Despite the present-day conventional wisdom in Washington that these are frivolous
questions, they actually go to the heart of the American commitment to the rule of law and the
concept that the law applies to everyone. In this guest essay, Peter Dyer looks at this larger
issue:
Just over six decades ago, the first Nuremberg Trial began. On Nov. 21, 1945, U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Robert Jackson opened the prosecution of 21 Germans for initiating a war of
aggression and for the crimes which flowed from this act. Now is a good time to reconsider some
of the history and issues involved in this momentous trial in the light of the invasion and
occupation of Iraq.
The trial lasted for over a year, culminating in verdicts of guilty of one, some, or all of
these crimes for 18 of the defendants. Eleven were sentenced to death.
While the Nuremberg trial is, these days, seldom invoked or discussed, it was, and still is,
in the words of Tribunal President Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, "unique in the history of the
jurisprudence of the world." Among the most groundbreaking aspects were the drive to formally
criminalize the three categories of crimes, and to establish responsibility by individuals for
these crimes.
These days, the Nuremberg Trial is chiefly remembered for the prosecution and punishment of
individuals for genocide. Equally important at the time, however, was the focus on wars of
aggression. Thus, the first sentence of Justice Jackson's opening statement: "The privilege of
opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave
responsibility."
Crimes against peace and the responsibility tor them were detined in Article 6, the heart of
the Charter of the IMT: "The tribunal.. .shall have the power to try and punish persons who..
.whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following
crimes...(a) Crimes Against Peace, namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war
of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances..
The desire was not only to punish individuals for crimes but to set an international moral
and legal precedent for the future. Indeed, before the end of 1946, the United Nations General
Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 95 (1), affirming '4he principles of International Law
recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal." And, of
course, the United Nations Charter forbids armed aggression and violations of the sovereignty
of any state by any other state, except in immediate self defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and
Articles 39 and 51).
Invoking the precedent set by the United States and its allies at the Nuremberg trial in
1946, there can be no doubt that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression.
There was no imminent threat to U.S. security nor to the security of the world. The invasion
violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.
The Nuremberg precedent calls for no less than the arrest and prosecution of those
individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq, beginning with President George W. Bush, Vice
President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza
Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz.
Those who still justify the invasion of Iraq would do well to remember the words of Justice
Jackson: "Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it
finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or
for altering these conditions."
And, for those who have difficulty visualizing American leaders as defendants in such a
trial, Justice Jackson's words again: "...(L)et me make clear that while this law is first
applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it
must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in
judgment...This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law
to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world's peace
and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbors."
Peter Dyer is a machinist who moved with his wife from California to New Zealand in
2004.
Aaron , July 26, 2020 at 20:17
Well, it would have been up to one person to call for an investigation and prosecute any
illegal actions pertaining to the invasion – Barack Obama. Nobody in the Bush
administration would have done it, and it was something that Obama talked about alot in his
speeches in his campaign to be president.
Ana Márcia Vainsencher , July 25, 2020 at 17:47
Law is only applied to the USA "enemies", are they real, or no. Historically, the USA
loves to create enemies. It's the king of wars.
Sadly, we still entertain notions of war crimes, meaning that mass murders can be
conducted in legal ways that's the disease right there: all we have to do is make rules for
how to slaughter human beings according to a scholarly and civilized rule book written by our
most gifted and trained in the humanities experts and then wipe out as many humans as we need
to in a completely legal way hello?
How about a Geneva convention to write up rules of child
rape, wife beating, or maybe the only thing to get "civilized" people upset: pet
murdering?
Germany was only doing the politcal economic business of capital, as were its enemies, except
for Russia which played the greater role in the defeat of "evil" nazi
capitalism..anti-democratic capitalism is in the business of war and it will take democratic
communism to bring about peace and global sanity before it destroys humanity.
Andrew Thomas , July 25, 2020 at 13:25
It has been clear for several decades that Nuremberg was not a precedent. It was -- and this
is very difficult to actually write out -- victor's justice, which is exactly what the Nazis
and their sympathizers said it was then. The US has been "projecting power" around the world
ever since in violation of the spirit of the legal terms of the international order it was
instrumental in creating post World War II; and its clear provisions at least since Reagan
told the World Court to drop dead re: Nicaragua vs. US.
Other more informed readers may have
much earlier examples. International law is simply a weapon for the empire when it is invoked
by it, and it is a useless farce for those the empire opposes.
Robert Sinuhe , July 25, 2020 at 10:34
Interesting, but how is it possible to prosecute the US when it already dominates the world? If Hitler and the Germans
had won the war there wouldn't have been a Nuremberg Trial. Principles are morals and just but power trumps all.
Steele's "Primary Subsource" Was Alcoholic Russian National Who Worked With Trump
Impeachment Witness At Brookings by Tyler Durden Sat, 07/25/2020 - 16:50
Twitter Facebook Reddit EmailPrint
The mysterious "Primary Subsource" that Christopher Steele has long hidden behind to defend
his discredited Trump-Russia dossier is a former Brookings Institution analyst -- Igor "Iggy"
Danchenko, a Russian national whose past includes criminal convictions and other personal
baggage ignored by the FBI in vetting him and the information he fed to Steele , according to
congressional sources and records obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Agents continued to use
the dossier as grounds to investigate President Trump and put his advisers under
counter-espionage surveillance.
The 42-year-old Danchenko, who was hired by Steele in 2016 to deploy a network of sources to
dig up dirt on Trump and Russia for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was arrested, jailed and
convicted years earlier on multiple public drunkenness and disorderly conduct charges in the
Washington area and ordered to undergo substance-abuse and mental-health counseling, according
to criminal records.
Fiona Hill: She worked at the Brookings Institution with dossier "Primary Subsource" Igor
"Iggy" Danchenko (top photo), and testified against President Trump last year during
impeachment hearings. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
In an odd twist, a 2013 federal case against Danchenko was prosecuted by then-U.S Attorney
Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap warrants as deputy
attorney general in 2017.
Danchenko first ran into trouble with the law as he began working for Brookings - the
preeminent Democratic think tank in Washington - where he struck up a friendship with Fiona
Hill, the White House adviser who testified against Trump during last year's impeachment
hearings. Danchenko has described Hill as a mentor, while Hill has sung his praises as a
"creative" researcher.
Hill is also close to his boss Steele, who she'd known since 2006 . She met with the former
British intelligence officer during the 2016 campaign and later received a raw, unpublished
copy of the now-debunked dossier.
It does not appear the FBI asked Danchenko about his criminal past or state of sobriety when
agents interviewed him in January 2017 in a failed attempt to verify the accuracy of the
dossier, which the bureau did only after agents used it to obtain a warrant to surveil Trump
campaign adviser Carter Page. The opposition research was farmed out by Steele, working for
Clinton's campaign, to Danchenko, who was paid for the information he provided.
A newly declassified FBI summary of the FBI-Danchenko meeting reveals agents learned that
key allegations in the dossier, which claimed Trump engaged in a "well-developed conspiracy of
cooperation" with the Kremlin against Clinton, were largely inspired by gossip and bar talk
among Danchenko and his drinking buddies, most of whom were childhood friends from Russia.
The FBI memo is heavily redacted and blacks out the name of Steele's Primary Subsource. But
public records and congressional sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirm the
identity of the source as Danchenko.
In the memo, the FBI notes that Danchenko said that he and one of his dossier sources "drink
heavily together." But there is no apparent indication the FBI followed up by asking Danchenko
if he had an alcohol problem, which would cast further doubt on his reliability as a source for
one of the most important and sensitive investigations in FBI history.
The FBI declined comment. Attempts to reach Danchenko by both email and phone were
unsuccessful.
The Justice Department's watchdog recently debunked the dossier's most outrageous
accusations against Trump, and faulted the FBI for relying on it to obtain secret wiretaps. The
bureau's actions, which originated under the Obama administration, are now the subject of a
sprawling criminal investigation led by special prosecutor John Durham.
Rod Rosenstein: In an odd twist, a 2013 drunkenness case against Danchenko was prosecuted by
then-U.S Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap
warrants as deputy attorney general in 2017. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP)
One of the wiretap warrants was signed in 2017 by Rosenstein, who also that year appointed
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and signed a "scope" memo giving him wide latitude to
investigate Trump and his surrogates. Mueller relied on the dossier too. As it happens,
Rosenstein also signed motions filed in one of Danchenko's public intoxication cases, according
to the documents obtained by RCI.
In March 2013 -- three years before Danchenko began working on the dossier -- federal
authorities in Greenbelt, Md., arrested and charged him with several misdemeanors, including
"drunk in public, disorderly conduct, and failure to have his [2-year-old] child in a safety
seat," according to a court
filing . The U.S. prosecutor for Maryland at the time was Rosenstein, whose name
appears in the docket filings .
The Russian-born Danchenko, who was living in the U.S. on a work visa, was released from
jail on the condition he undergo drug testing and "participate in a program of substance abuse
therapy and counseling," as well as "mental health counseling," the records show. His lawyer
asked the court to postpone his trial and let him travel to Moscow "as a condition of his
employment." The Russian trips were granted without objection from Rosenstein. Danchenko ended
up several months later entering into a plea agreement and paying fines.
In 2006, Danchenko was arrested in Fairfax, Va., on similar offenses, including "public
swearing and intoxication," criminal records show. The case was disposed after he paid a
fine.
At the time, Danchenko worked as a research analyst for the Brookings Institution, where he
became a protégé of Hill. He collaborated with her on at least two Russian policy
papers during his five-year stint at the think tank and worked with another Brookings scholar
on a project to
uncover alleged plagiarism in Russian President Vladimir Putin's doctoral dissertation --
something Danchenko and his lawyer boasted about during their meeting with FBI agents. (Like
Hill, the other scholar, Clifford Gaddy, was a Russia hawk. He and Hill in 2015 authored "Mr.
Putin: Operative in the Kremlin," a book strongly endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden at the
time.)
"Igor is a highly accomplished analyst and researcher," Hill noted on his LinkedIn page in
2011.
"He is very creative in pursuing the most relevant of information and detail to support
his research."
Strobe Talbott of Brookings with Hillary Clinton: He connected with Christopher Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Fiona Hill. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Hill also vouched for Steele, an old friend and British intelligence counterpart. The two
reunited in 2016, sitting down for at least one meeting. Her boss at the time, Brookings
President Strobe Talbott, also connected with Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Hill. A tough Trump critic, Talbott
previously worked in the Clinton administration and rallied the think tank behind Hillary.
Talbott's brother-in-law is Cody Shearer, another old Clinton hand who disseminated his own
dossier in 2016 that echoed many of the same lurid and unsubstantiated claims against Trump.
Through a mutual friend at the State Department, Steele obtained a copy of Shearer's dossier
and reportedly submitted it to the FBI to help corroborate his own.
In August 2016, Talbott personally called Steele, based in London, to offer his own input on
the dossier he was compiling from Danchenko's feeds. Steele phoned Talbott just before the
November election, during which Talbott asked for the latest dossier memos to distribute to top
officials at the State Department. After Trump's surprise win, the mood at Brookings turned
funereal and Talbott and
Steele strategized about how they "should handle" the dossier going forward.
During the Trump transition, Talbott encouraged Hill to leave Brookings and take
a job in the White House so she could be "one of the adults in the room" when Russia and
Putin came up. She served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European
and Russian affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019.
She left the White House just before a National Security Council detailee who'd worked with
her, Eric Ciaramella, secretly huddled with Democrats in Congress and
alleged Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to launch an investigation of Biden and
his son in exchange for military aid. Democrats soon held hearings to impeach Trump, calling
Hill as one of their star witnesses.
Congressional investigators are taking a closer look at tax-exempt Brookings, which has
emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal. As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is
prohibited from lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Gryffindor/Wikimedia
Under questioning by Republican staff, Hill disclosed that Steele reached out to her for
information about a mysterious individual, but she claimed she could not recall his name. She
also said she couldn't remember the month she and Steele met.
"He had contacted me because he wanted to see if I could give him a contact to some other
individual, who actually I don't even recall now, who he could approach about some business
issues," Hill told the House
last year in an Oct. 14 deposition taken behind closed doors.
Congressional investigators are reviewing her testimony, while taking a closer look at
tax-exempt Brookings, which has emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal.
Registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is prohibited from
lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Specifically, investigators want to know if
Brookings played any role in the development of the dossier.
"Their 501(c)(3) status should be audited, because they are a major player in the dossier
deal," said a congressional staffer who has worked on the investigation into alleged Russian
influence.
Hill, who returned to Brookings as a senior fellow in January, could not be reached for
comment. Brookings did not respond to inquiries.
Ghost Employee
As a former member of Britain's secret intelligence service, Steele hadn't traveled to
Russia in decades and apparently had no useful sources there . So he relied entirely on
Danchenko and his supposed "network of subsources," which to its chagrin, the FBI discovered
was nothing more than a "social circle."
It soon became clear over their three days of debriefing him at the FBI's Washington field
office - held just days after Trump was sworn into office - that any Russian insights he may
have had were strictly academic.
Danchenko confessed he had no inside line to the Kremlin and was "clueless" when Steele
hired him in March 2016 to investigate ties between Russia and Trump and his campaign
manager.
Christopher Steele, former British spy, leaving a London court this week in a libel case
brought against him by a Russian businessman. Dossier source Danchenko's drinking pals fed him
a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" for pay -- which Steele, in turn, further embellished
with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence." (Victoria Jones/PA via
AP)
Desperate for leads, he turned to a ragtag group of Russian and American journalists,
drinking buddies (including one who'd been arrested on pornography charges) and even an old
girlfriend to scare up information for his London paymaster, according to the FBI's January
2017 interview memo, which runs 57 pages. Like him, his friends made a living hustling gossip
for cash, and they fed him a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" -- which Steele, in turn,
further embellished with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence."
Instead of closing its case against Trump, however, the FBI continued to rely on the
information Danchenko dictated to Steele for the dossier, even swearing to a secret court that
it was credible enough to renew wiretaps for another nine months.
One of Danchenko's sources was nothing more than an anonymous voice on the other end of a
phone call that lasted 10-15 minutes.
Danchenko told the FBI he figured out later that the call-in tipster, who he said did not
identify himself, was Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-born realtor in New York. In the dossier,
Steele labeled this source "an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican U.S. presidential
candidate Donald Trump," and attributed Trump-Russia conspiracy revelations to him that the FBI
relied on to support probable cause in all four FISA applications for warrants to spy on Trump
adviser Carter Page -- including the Mueller-debunked myth that he and the campaign were
involved in "the DNC email hacking operation."
Danchenko explained to agents the call came after he solicited Millian by email in late July
2016 for information for his assignment from Steele. Millian told RCI that though he did
receive an email from Danchenko on July 21, he ignored the message and never called him.
"There was not any verbal communications with him," he insisted. "I'm positive, 100%,
nothing what is claimed in whatever call they invented I could have said."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Millian provided RCI part of the email, which was written mostly in Russian. Contact
information at the bottom of the email reads:
Igor Danchenko
Business Analyst
Target Labs Inc.
8320 Old Courthouse Rd, Suite 200
Vienna, VA 22182
+1-202-679-5323
At the time, Danchenko listed Target Labs, an IT recruiter run by ethnic-Russians, as an
employer on his resumé. But technically, he was not a paid employee there. Thanks to a
highly unusual deal Steele arranged with the company, Danchenko was able to use Target Labs as
an employment front.
It turns out that in 2014, when Danchenko first started freelancing regularly for Steele
after losing his job at a Washington strategic advisory firm, he set out to get a security
clearance to start his own company. But drawing income from a foreign entity like Steele's
London-based company, Orbis Business Intelligence, would hurt his chances.
So Steele agreed to help him broker a special "arrangement" with Target Labs, where a
Russian friend of Danchenko's worked as an executive, in which the company would bring
Danchenko on board as an employee but not put him officially on the payroll. Danchenko would
continue working for Steele and getting paid by Orbis with payments funneled through Target
Labs. In effect, Target Labs served as the "contract vehicle" through which Danchenko was paid
a monthly salary for his work for Orbis, the FBI memo reveals.
Though Danchenko had a desk available to use at Target Labs, he did most of his work for
Orbis from home and did not take direction from the firm. Steele continued to give him
assignments and direct his travel. Danchenko essentially worked as a ghost employee at Target
Labs.
Asked about it, a Target Labs spokesman would only say that Danchenko "does not work with us
anymore."
Brian Auten: He wrote the memo on the FBI's interview with the Primary Subsource, which is
silent about Danchenko's criminal record. Patrick Henry College
Some veteran FBI officials worry Moscow's foreign intelligence service may have planted
disinformation with Danchenko and his network of sources in Russia. At least one of them,
identified only as "Source 5" in the FBI memo, was described as having a Russian "kurator," or
handler.
"There are legions of 'connected' Russians purveying second- and third-hand -- and often
made-up -- due diligence reports and private intelligence," said former FBI assistant
director Chris Swecker. "Putin's intelligence minions use these people well to plant
information."
Danchenko has scrubbed his social media account. He told the FBI he deleted all his
dossier-related electronic communications, including texts and emails, and threw out his
handwritten notes from conversations with his subsources.
In the end, Steele walked away from the dossier debacle with at least $168,000, and
Danchenko earned a large undisclosed sum.
The FBI interview memo, which is silent about Danchenko's criminal record, was written by
FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, who was called out in the Justice inspector
general report for ignoring inconsistencies, contradictions, errors and outright falsehoods in
the dossier he was supposed to verify.
It was also Auten's duty to vet Steele and his sources. Auten sat in on the meetings with
Danchenko and also separate ones with Steele. He witnessed firsthand the countless red flags
that popped up from their testimony. Yet Auten continued to tout their reliability as sources,
and give his blessing to agents to use their dossier as probable cause to renew FISA
surveillance warrants to spy on Page.
As RCI first reported, Auten teaches a national security course at a Washington-area college
on the ethics of such spying .
Former Flynn Deputy K.T. McFarland claims the Durham criminal inquiry into the friggin' in
the riggin' of the "Russia Investigation" and who knew what and when at the FBI and elsewhere
is just about ready to wrap up, and teases that we can expect indictments by the end of the
summer. Solid documentary evidence in the form of meeting notes, email exchanges and the like
has emerged, she says.
There is circumstantial evidence the European Union is systematically sinking boats loaded
with refugees coming from the Libyan route. The MS editorial is correct in calling the
Mediterranean "the graveyard of many people from the Middle East and Africa."
It looks like a continental-wide operation of genocide and silence: the Italian and Greek
Coast Guards do the dirty job with secret blessing from their governments, and their
governments count with the tacit blessing (and silence) from the other EU governments and
their respective MSMs. The Russian and Chinese MSMs do nothing because they can't prove it
(as they don't have access to the local) and are more honest than the Western MSM (they don't
report what they can't know).
I wouldn't be surprised if we were talking, after all of this is done, of about some
100,000 dead drowned in the Mediterranean. After that dead boy in a Turkish beach fiasco,
they took care of perfecting the scheme, so that the Italian and Greek coast guards can
operate deeper into the sea, where the drowned corpses cannot be beached. If true, this would
be the most well covered genocide in modern history, and the first one will full and direct
complying from the "free press".
Roger Thornhill 2 hours ago If I recall correctly, Obama gave the Russians all of 48 hours
to leave their consulate in San Francisco, which had been occupied since the 19th Century. This
was around Christmas time in 2016. So I don't find this particularly surprising. Two days to
have the diplomats, staff, and families completely out of the country.
Move comes as Libya gov't and Turkey demand an end of foreign intervention in support of
commander Khalifa Haftar.
####
I suspect In'Sultin Erd O'Grand is a mole of the garden kind. He goes about digging
one hole for himself after another. If he keeps this up, all the holes will merge in to
one and he will disappear! It would give the West a chance to have someone running Turkey
with a more reliably western perspective though I think it is clear that whatever comes next,
Turkey will not allow itself to be treated as a western annex and pawn.
About the Steele Dossier. From the beginning I was nagged by the question of whether anyone
had seriously dug into its provenance? I mean, the chain of custody is critical in evaluating
evidence, isn't it? But that didn't seem to matter to most conversations about it for the
longest time. The impression was left hanging that Christopher Steele, crackerjack agent, had
got the inside stuff straight from people in or near the Kremlin.
Now we learn that the FBI did interview Steele's main conduit for all those claims --
"Primary Sub-source" -- intensively, for three days, early in the Trump administration. They
just never bothered to release any of their findings to the public, even as the dossier's main
claim -- Trump is a Kremlin agent of long standing, beholden to Putin due to some pee tape
kompromat -- took hold in the American political mind and became an article of faith for some.
Still is.
The FBI notes of that interview were released just a few days ago. And they reveal the
"dossier" had zero original reporting. It was concocted entirely from rumors picked up
second-or-third hand, inventive guesses, drunken conversations with persons of no particular
expertise, pillow talk between the main sub-source and his dependent Russian lady friend, and
fragments of a garbled phone call with a "source" whose identity could not be even
approximately established.
In other words, it's way worse than even I thought. And regular readers of this page know
pretty well what I thought about the likely veracity of the Steele Dossier. That such a
pathetic tissue of speculation, delirium and outright falsehood could capture the American
political imagination and drive debate -- for years! -- is simply astounding.
"Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise
that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on,
Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the
FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017. Notes
taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday
afternoon."
The praetorian guard has become indistinguishable from the yellow
journalists. Indict them all for treason.
russellremmert 1 day ago
is steel in prison yet Reply
12
DonEstif -> russellremmert 1 day ago
Almost, he's an expert pundit used by CNN
Ban-me Fagggot 1 day ago
If Russia stole the election when Obama was President, why
wouldn't they steal the election when Trump is President? Democrats should protest by not
voting. It wont make a difference.
TGrade1 1 day ago
Behind all of this, hidden behind the
curtain, is a pants suit...
Justis -> TGrade1 11 hours ago
And more importantly, the then leader
of the free world, Obama...
"Getting" Flynn was the key to neutering the danger Trump posed to the deep state, since
General Flynn was the one military advisor to Trump who was knowledgeable and who had
recognized the salient fact that, under Obama, the US was employing the "raghead" element to do
their bidding in Syria and elsewhere.
Without Flynn, Trump, who like many has a tendency to accept the views of credentialled
experts, could be convinced to continue the deep state policy of permanent warfare aided by
jihadist barbarians. Trump's tragedy was that he accepted what appeared to be the inevitable
and allowed Flynn to be taken down.
There is something rotten in the state .. of England.
This Skripal thing smelled to high heaven from day 1. My opinion is that Sergei Skripal was
involved (to what degree is open to speculation) with the Steele dossier. He was getting
homesick (perhaps his mother getting older is part of this) for Russia and he thought that to
get back to Russia he needed something big to get back in Putin's good graces. He would have
needed something really big because Putin really has no use for traitors. Skripal put out some
feelers (perhaps through his daughter though that may be dicey). The two couriers were sent to
seal or move the deal forward. The Brits (and perhaps the CIA) found out about this and decided
to make an example of Sergei. Perhaps because they found out about this late, the deep
state/intelligence people had to move very quickly. The deep state story was was extremely
shaky (to put it mildly) as a result. Or they were just incompetent and full of hubris.
Then they were stuck with the story and bullshit coverup was layered on bullshit coverup. 7
Reply FlorianGeyer Reply to
Marcus April 20, 2019
@ Marcus.
To hope to get away with lies, one must have perfect memory and a superior intellect that
can create a lie with some semblance of reality in real life, as opposed to the digital
'reality' in a Video game. And a rather corny video game at that.
MI5/6 failed on all parts of Lie creation 2 Reply Mistaron April 21, 2019
If Trump was so furious about being conned by Haspel, how come he then went on to promote
her to becoming the head of the CIA? It's quite perplexing.
Did Skripal played any role in this mess. In this case his poisoning looks more logical as an attempt to hide him from
Russians, who might well suspect him in playing a role in creating Steele dossier by some myths that were present in it.
Notable quotes:
"... Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence". ..."
Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise
that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on,
Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the
FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017.
Notes taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary
Committee Friday afternoon.
The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele's sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking
contractor for the former British spy's company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the
Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From
the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled
warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence
memos.
Paul Manafort: The Steele dossier's "Primary Subsource" admitted to the FBI "that he was
'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was a 'strange task' to have been given." AP
Photo/Seth Wenig, File
Steele's operation didn't rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource's
account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring
of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: "Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort's
dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes." The Primary
Subsource admitted to the FBI "that he was 'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was
a 'strange task' to have been given."
The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia
– he didn't have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a
"social circle." And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with
his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with
the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about
Manafort and fed them back to Steele.
Also in his "social circle" was Primary Subsource's friend "Source 2," a character who was
always on the make. "He often tries to monetize his relationship with [the Primary Subsource],
suggesting that the two of them should try and do projects together for money," the Primary
Subsource told the FBI (a caution that the Primary Subsource would repeat again and again.) It
was Source 2 who "told [the Primary Subsource] that there was compromising material on
Trump."
And then there was Source 3, a very special friend. Over a redacted number of years, the
Primary Subsource has "helped out [Source 3] financially." She stayed with him when visiting
the United States. The Primary Subsource told the FBI that in the midst of their conversations
about Trump, they would also talk about "a private subject." (The FBI agents, for all their
hardnosed reputation, were too delicate to intrude by asking what that "private subject"
was).
Michael Cohen: The bogus story of the Trump fixer's trip to Prague seems to have originated
with "Source 3," a woman friend of the Primary Subsource, who was "not sure if Source 3 was
brainstorming here." AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
One day Steele told his lead contractor to get dirt on five individuals. By the time he got
around to it, the Primary Subsource had forgotten two of the names, but seemed to recall Carter
Page, Paul Manafort and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. The Primary Subsource said he asked his
special friend Source 3 if she knew any of them. At first she didn't. But within minutes she
seemed to recall having heard of Cohen, according to the FBI notes. Indeed, before long it came
back to her that she had heard Cohen and three henchmen had gone to Prague to meet with
Russians.
Source 3 kept spinning yarns about Michael Cohen in Prague. For example, she claimed Cohen
was delivering "deniable cash payments" to hackers. But come to think of it, the Primary
Subsource was "not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here," the FBI notes say.
The Steele Dossier would end up having authoritative-sounding reports of hackers who had
been "recruited under duress by the FSB" -- the Russian security service -- and how they "had
been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct
'altering operations' against the the Democratic Party." What exactly, the FBI asked the
subject, were "altering operations?" The Primary Subsource wouldn't be much help there, as he
told the FBI "that his understanding of this topic (i.e. cyber) was 'zero.'" But what about his
girlfriend whom he had known since they were in eighth grade together? The Primary Subsource
admitted to the FBI that Source 3 "is not an IT specialist herself."
And then there was Source 6. Or at least the Primary Subsource thinks it was Source 6.
Ritz-Carlton Moscow: The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to
confirm the story" about Trump and prostitutes at the hotel. But he did check with someone who
supposedly asked a hotel manager, who said that with celebrities, "one never knows what they're
doing." Moscowjob.net/Wikimedia
While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist "at
a Thai restaurant." The Primary Subsource didn't want to ask "revealing questions" but managed
to go so far as to ask, "Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this
Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?" According to the FBI notes, the journalist told
Primary Subsource "that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up." But the
journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a "colleague" who in turn gave him an email
of "this guy" journalist 2 had interviewed and "that he should talk to."
With the email address of "this guy" in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message "in
either June or July 2016." Some weeks later the Primary Subsource "received a telephone call
from an unidentified Russia guy." He "thought" but had no evidence that the mystery "Russian
guy" was " that guy." The mystery caller "never identified himself." The Primary Subsource
labeled the anonymous caller "Source 6." The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total
of "about 10 minutes." During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource
traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.
Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice "Source 6" and gave
Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had "a general
discussion about Trump and the Kremlin" and "that it was an ongoing relationship." For use in
the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.
When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier,
here's how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: "Speaking in confidence to a
compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US
presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of
co-operation between them and the Russian leadership." Steele writes "Inter alia," – yes,
he really does deploy the Latin formulation for "among other things" – "Source E
acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail
messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks
platform."
All that and more is presented as the testimony of a "close associate" of Trump, when it was
just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.
Perhaps even more perplexing is that the FBI interviewers, knowing that Source E was just an
anonymous caller, didn't compare that admission to the fantastical Steele bluster and declare
the dossier a fabrication on the spot.
But perhaps it might be argued that Christopher Steele was bringing crack investigative
skills of his own to bear. For something as rich in detail and powerful in effect as the
dossier, Steele must have been researching these questions himself as well, using his
hard-earned spy savvy to pry closely held secrets away from the Russians. Or at the very least
he must have relied on a team of intelligence operatives who could have gone far beyond the
obvious limitations the Primary Subsource and his group of drinking buddies.
But no. As we learned in December from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Steele "was not
the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting." Steele, the IG
reported "relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary
Sub-source used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed
to Steele." The inspector general's report noted that "neither Steele nor the Primary
Sub-source had direct access to the information being reported."
One might, by now, harbor some skepticism about the dossier. One might even be inclined to
doubt the story that Trump was "into water sports" as the Primary Subsource so delicately
described the tale of Trump and Moscow prostitutes. But, in this account, there was an effort,
however feeble, to nail down the "rumor and speculation" that Trump engaged in "unorthodox
sexual activity at the Ritz."
While the Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to confirm the story,"
Source 2 (who will be remembered as the hustler always looking for a lucrative score)
supposedly asked a hotel manager about Trump and the manager said that with celebrities, "one
never knows what they're doing." One never knows – not exactly a robust proof of
something that smacks of urban myth. But the Primary Subsource makes the best of it, declaring
that at least "it wasn't a denial."
If there was any denial going on it was the FBI's, an agency in denial that its
extraordinary investigation was crumbling.
bh2, 23 minutes ago
Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".
A top government watchdog group obtained 136 pages of never before publicized emails between
former FBI lovers
Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page and one in particular appears to refer to a confidential informant inside the
White House in 2017, according to a press release from
Judicial Watch .
Those emails, some of which are heavily redacted, reveal that "Strzok, Page and top bureau
officials in the days prior to and following
President Donald Trump's inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing
that could "play into" the
FBI's "investigative strategy."
Majority Say They Want to See Trump's Taxes, Many Think Returns Would Hurt Reelection
Chances
White House Reportedly Moves to Make Coronavirus Cases Private by Cutting Out
CDC
Trump White House Reportedly Conducting 'Loyalty' Interviews of Officials,
Appointees
Majority Don't Trust Trump's Public Messages on COVID-19, Disapproval on Pandemic Response
Hits 60%
Trump's Niece Says She's Heard Him Use the N-Word, Anti-Semitic Slurs
Trump Administration is Reportedly Out to Smear Dr. Anthony Fauci for Early Comments on
Coronavirus
Trump Refuses To Unveil Obama's Portrait At The White House
White House Testing Staff For COVID-19, But Are Results Accurate?
Moreover, another email sent by Strzok to Bill
Priestap, the Former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division, refers to
what appears to be a confidential informant in the White House. The email was sent the day
after Trump's inauguration.
"I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]," wrote Strzok. "
I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters
there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to
have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one
of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her
to handle WH detailee interaction."
In April, 2019 this reporter first published information that there was an alleged
confidential informant for the FBI in the White House. In fact, then senior Republican Chairmen
of the Senate Appropriations Committee
Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson submitted a
letter to Department of Justice Attorney General William Barr revealing the new texts from
Strzok to Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White
House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration.
The Chairmen revealed the information in a three page letter. The texts had been already
been obtained by SaraACarter.com and information regarding the possible attempt to recruit
White House sources had been divulged by several sources to this news site last week.
At the time, texts obtained by this news site and sources stated that Strzok had one
significant contact within the White House – at the time that would have been Vice
President Mike Pence's Chief of Staff Joshua Pitcock,
as reported.
Over the past year, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, along with years
of numerous Congressional investigations, has uncovered a plethora of documentation revealing
the most intimate details of the FBI's now debunked investigation into Trump's campaign and its
alleged conspiracy with Russia.
For example, in a series of emails exchanged by top bureau officials – in the FBI
General Counsel's office, Counterintelligence Division and Washington Field office on Jan. 19,
2017 – reveal that senior leadership, including former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were
coordinating with each other in their ongoing attempt to target the incoming administration.
Priestap was also included in the email exchanges. The recent discovery in April, of Priestap's
handwritten notes taken in January, 2017 before the Strzok and his FBI partner interviewed
Flynn were a bombshell. In Priestap's notes he states, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to
get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
In one recent email chain obtained by Judicial Watch, FBI assistant general counsel in the
FBI's National Security Law Branch stated in an email to Strzok [which was almost entirely
redacted]
"I'll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too," it stated. Strzok's reply to the assistant
general counsel, however, was redacted by DOJ. The response back to Strzok has also been
redacted.
Then later in the evening at 7:04 p.m., Strzok sends another emails stating, "I briefed
Bill (Priestap) this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [McCabe]. I
will forward below to him as his [sic] changes the timeline. What's your recommendation?"
The reply, like many of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the DOJ, is almost
entirely redacted. The email response to Strzok was from the Counterintelligence
Division.
Here's what was not redacted
"Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request. [Redacted] – please advise if I am
missing something." An unidentified official replies, "[Redacted], Bill is aware and willing
to jump in when we need him."
Judicial Watch Timeline of Events On Emails Obtained Through FOIA
At 8 p.m., Strzok responds back (copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division,
Washington Field Office and General Counsel's office):
"Just talked with Bill. [Redacted]. Please relay above to WFO and [redacted] tonight, and
keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same. Good luck."
Strzok then forwards the whole email exchange to Lisa Page, saying, "Bill spoke with Andy.
[Redacted.] Here we go again "
The Day After Trump's Inauguration
The day after Trump's inauguration, on Jan. 21, 2017, Strzok forwarded Page and [a redacted
person] an
email he'd sent that day to Priestap. Strzok asked them to "not forward/share."
In the email to Priestap, Strzok said, "I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing
routed from [redacted]. I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending
investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy , and I would
like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the
briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I
did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction."
" Also, on January 21, 2017, Strzok wrote largely the same message
he'd sent to Priestap directly to his counterintelligence colleague Jennifer Boone ," states
Judicial Watch.
The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)
lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all
communications between Strzok and Page ( Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).
The FBI has only processed emails at a rate of 500 pages per month and has yet to process
text messages. At this rate, the production of these communications, which still number around
8,000 pages, would not be completed until at least late 2021.
In other emails, Strzok comments on reporting on the anti-Trump dossier authored by Hillary
Clinton's paid operative Christopher Steele.
In a January 2017 email ,
Strzok takes issue with a UK Independent report which claimed Steele had suspected there was a
"cabal" within the FBI which put the Clinton email investigation above the Trump-Russia probe.
Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent, was at the heart of both the Clinton email and
Trump-Russia investigations.
In April and June of 2017, the FBI would use the dossier as key evidence in obtaining FISA
warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. In a declassified
summary of a Department of Justice assessment of the warrants that was released by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in January of this year, it was determined that
those two applications to secretly monitor Page lacked probable cause.
The newly released records include a January 11, 2017, email
from Strzok to Lisa Page, Priestap, and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Jon
Moffa, a New York Times report
which refers to the dossier as containing "unsubstantiated accounts" and "unproven claims." In
the email, Strzok comments on the article, calling it "Pretty good reporting."
On January 14, 2017, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan forwards
to Strzok, Page and Priestap a link to a UK
Independent article entitled "Former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele's Frustration as FBI Sat
On Donald Trump Russia File for Months".
The article, citing security sources, notes that "Steele became increasingly frustrated that
the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to
believe there was a cover-up: that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr
Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Clinton's emails."
Strzok responds: "Thanks Mike. Of course not accurate [the cover-up/cabal nonsense]. Is that
question gaining traction anywhere else?"
The records also include a February 10, 2017, email
from Strzok to Page mentioning then-national security adviser Michael Flynn (five days before
Flynn resigned) and includes a photo of Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Strzok
also makes a joke about how McCabe had fat shamed Kislyak.
On February 8, 2017, Strzok, under the subject "RE: EO on Economic Espionage," emailed
Lisa Page, saying, "Please let [redacted] know I talked to [redacted]. Tonight, he approached
Flynn's office and got no information." Strzok was responding to a copy of an email Page had
sent him. The email, from a redacted FBI official to Deputy Director McCabe read: "OPS has not
received a draft EO on economic espionage. Instead, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised OPS
that they received a draft, but they did not send us the draft. I'll follow up with our
detailees about this EO." Flynn resigned
on February 13, 2017.
On January 26, 2017, Nancy McNamara of the FBI's Inspection Division emailed
Strzok and Priestap with the subject line "Leak," saying, "Tried calling you but the phones are
forwarded to SIOC. I got the tel call report, however [redacted]. Feel free to give me a call
if I have it wrong." Strzok forwarded the McNamara email to Lisa Page and an unidentified
person in the General Counsel's office, saying, "Need to talk to you about how to respond to
this."
On January 11, 2017, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff emailed
Kortan, saying he'd learned that Steele had worked for the Bureau's Eurasian organized crime
section and had turned over the dossier on Trump-Russian "collusion" to the bureau in Rome.
Kortan forwards Isikoff's email to aide Richard Quinn, who forwards to Strzok "just for
visibility". Strzok forwards to his boss, Priestap and Moffa, saying, "FYI, [redacted], you or
I should probably inform [redacted]. How's your relationship with him? Bill unless you object,
I'll let Parmaan [presumably senior FBI official Bryan Paarmann] know." Strzok forwards the
whole exchange onto Lisa Page.
On January 18, 2017, reporter Peter Elkind of ProPublica reached
out to Kortan, asking to interview Strzok, Michael Steinbach, Jim Baker, Priestap, former
FBI Director James Comey and DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg for a story Elkind was working
on. Kortan replied, "Okay, I will start organizing things." Further along in the thread, an FBI
Press Office official reached out to an FBI colleague for assistance with the interviews,
saying Steinbach had agreed to a "background discussion" with Elkind, who was "writing the
'definitive' account of what happened during the Clinton investigation, specifically, Comey's
handling of the investigation, seeking to reconstruct and explain in much greater detail what
he did and why he did it." In May 2017, Elkind wrote an
article titled "The Problems With the FBI's Email Investigation Went Well Beyond Comey,"
which in light of these documents, strongly suggests many FBI officials leaked to the
publication.
Strzok ended up being scheduled
to meet with Elkind at 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2017, before an Elkind interview of Comey's
chief of staff Jim Rybicki. Elkind's reporting on the Clinton email investigation was discussed
at length in previous
emails obtained by Judicial Watch.
"These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he
stepped foot in the Oval Office," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And now we see how
the Comey FBI was desperate to spin, through high-level leaks, its mishandling of the Clinton
email investigation. And, in a continuing outrage, it should be noted that Wray's FBI and
Barr's DOJ continue slow-walk the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails – which
means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won't be reviewed and released until 2021-2022!"
In February 2020, Judicial Watch
uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the
FBI about her email controversy, apologized for "the work and effort" it caused the bureau and
she said she chose to use it "out of convenience" and that "it proved to be anything but."
Strzok said Clinton's apology and the "convenience" discussion were "not in" the FBI 302 report
that summarized the interview.
Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct
involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau's investigation of alleged
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional "confirmed
classified emails" were found on Clinton's unsecure non-state.gov email server "beyond the number presented" in
then-FBI Director James Comey's statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was
granting Clinton's lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports
related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about
"squashing" an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.
In January 2020, Judicial Watch
uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of
Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.
In November 2019, Judicial Watch
revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton's aides
were given meetings with senior FBI officials.
Also in November, Judicial Watch
uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton's statement denying the transmission of
classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials
citing "three [Clinton email] chains" containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of
paragraphs."
In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the " electronic
communication " (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed
"Crossfire Hurricane," of President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The document was
written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.
"... Powell was part of the policy team that crafted the post-Gulf War response to the fact that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, survived a conflict he was not meant to. After being labeled the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler whose crimes required Nuremburg-like retribution in a speech delivered by President Bush in October 1990, the Iraqi President's post-conflict hold on power had become a political problem for Bush 41. ..."
"... Powell was aware of the CIA's post-war assessment on the vulnerability of Saddam's rule to continued economic sanctions, and helped craft the policy that led to the passage of Security Council resolution 687 in April 1991. That linked Iraq's obligation to be disarmed of its WMD prior to any lifting of sanctions and the reality that it was U.S. policy not to lift these sanctions, regardless of Iraq's disarmament status, until which time Saddam was removed from power. ..."
"... Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy. ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of ..."
SCOTT RITTER: Powell & Iraq -- Regime Change, Not Disarmament: The Fundamental
Lie July 18, 2020 Save
Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards
Saddam Hussein. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy.
T he New York Times Magazine has published a puff piece soft-peddling former
Secretary of State Colin Powell's role in selling a war on Iraq to the UN Security Council
using what turned out to be bad intelligence. "Colin Powell Still Wants Answers" is the title
of the article, written by Robert Draper. "The analysts who provided the intelligence," a
sub-header to the article declares, "now say it was doubted inside the CIA at the time."
Draper's article is an extract from a book, To Start a War: How the Bush Administration
Took America into Iraq , scheduled for publication later this month. In the interest of
full disclosure, I was approached by Draper in 2018 about his interest in writing this book,
and I agreed to be interviewed as part of his research. I have not yet read the book, but can
note that, based upon the tone and content of his New York Times Magazine article, my
words apparently carried little weight.
Regime Change, Not WMD
I spent some time articulating to Draper my contention that the issue with Saddam Hussein's
Iraq was never about weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but rather regime change, and that
everything had to be viewed in the light of this reality -- including Powell's Feb. 5, 2003
presentation before the UN Security Council. Based upon the content of his article, I might as
well have been talking to a brick wall.
Powell's 2003 presentation before the council did not take place in a policy vacuum. In many
ways, the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was a continuation of
the 1991 Gulf War, which Powell helped orchestrate. Its fumbled aftermath was again, something
that transpired on Powell's watch as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the
administration of George H. W. Bush.
Powell at UN Security Council. (UN Photo)
Powell was part of the policy team that crafted the post-Gulf War response to the fact that
Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, survived a conflict he was not meant to. After being labeled
the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler whose crimes required Nuremburg-like retribution
in a speech delivered by President Bush in October 1990, the Iraqi President's
post-conflict hold on power had become a political problem for Bush 41.
Powell was aware of the CIA's post-war assessment on the vulnerability of Saddam's rule to
continued economic sanctions, and helped craft the policy that led to the passage of Security
Council resolution 687 in April 1991. That linked Iraq's obligation to be disarmed of its WMD
prior to any lifting of sanctions and the reality that it was U.S. policy not to lift these
sanctions, regardless of Iraq's disarmament status, until which time Saddam was removed from
power.
Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards
Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy.
I bore witness to the reality of this policy as a weapons inspector working for the United
Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), created under the mandate of resolution 687 to oversee the
disarming of Iraq's WMD. Brought in to create an intelligence capability for the inspection
team, my remit soon expanded to operations and, more specifically, how Iraq was hiding retained
weapons and capability from the inspectors.
SCUDS
UN weapons inspectors in central Iraq, June 1, 1991. (UN Photo)
One of my first tasks was addressing discrepancies in Iraq's accounting of its modified SCUD
missile arsenal; in December 1991 I wrote an assessment that Iraq was likely retaining
approximately 100 missiles. By March 1992 Iraq, under pressure, admitted it had retained a
force of 89 missiles (that number later grew to 97).
After extensive investigations, I was able to corroborate the Iraqi declarations, and in
November 1992 issued an assessment that UNSCOM could account for the totality of Iraq's SCUD
missile force. This, of course, was an unacceptable conclusion, given that a compliant Iraq
meant sanctions would need to be lifted and Saddam would survive.
The U.S. intelligence community rejected my findings without providing any fact-based
evidence to refute it, and the CIA later briefed the Senate that it assessed Iraq to be
retaining a force of some 200 covert SCUD missiles. This all took place under Powell's watch as
chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
I challenged the CIA's assessment, and organized the largest, most complex inspection in
UNSCOM's history to investigate the intelligence behind the 200-missile assessment. In the end,
the intelligence was shown to be wrong, and in November 1993 I briefed the CIA Director's
senior staff on UNSCOM's conclusion that all SCUD missiles were accounted for.
Moving the Goalposts
The CIA's response was to assert that Iraq had a force of 12-20 covert SCUD missiles, and
that this number would never change, regardless of what UNSCOM did. This same assessment was in
play at the time of Powell's Security Council presentation, a blatant lie born of the willful
manufacture of lies by an entity -- the CIA -- whose task was regime change, not
disarmament.
Powell knew all of this, and yet he still delivered his speech to the UN Security
Council.
In October 2002, in a
briefing designed to undermine the credibility of UN inspectors preparing to return to
Iraq, the Defense Intelligence Agency trotted out Dr. John Yurechko, the defense intelligence
officer for information operations and denial and deception, to provide a briefing detailing
U.S. claims that Iraq was engaged in a systematic process of concealment regarding its WMD
programs.
John Yurechko, of the Defense Intelligence Agency, briefs reporters at the Pentagon on Oct.
8, 2002 (U.S. Defense Dept.)
According to Yurechko, the briefing was compiled from several sources, including "inspector
memoirs" and Iraqi defectors. The briefing was farcical, a deliberate effort to propagate
misinformation by the administration of Bush 43. I know -- starting in 1994, I led a concerted
UNSCOM effort involving the intelligence services of eight nations to get to the bottom of
Iraq's so-called "concealment mechanism."
Using innovative imagery intelligence techniques, defector debriefs, agent networks and
communications intercepts, combined with extremely aggressive on-site inspections, I was able,
by March 1998, to conclude that Iraqi concealment efforts were largely centered on protecting
Saddam Hussein from assassination, and had nothing to do with hiding WMD. This, too, was an
inconvenient finding, and led to the U.S. dismantling the apparatus of investigation I had so
carefully assembled over the course of four years.
It was never about the WMD -- Powell knew this. It was always about regime change.
Using UN as Cover for Coup Attempt
In 1991, Powell signed off on the incorporation of elite U.S. military commandos into the
CIA's Special Activities Staff for the purpose of using UNSCOM as a front to collect
intelligence that could facilitate the removal of Saddam Hussein. I worked with this special
cell from 1991 until 1996, on the mistaken opinion that the unique intelligence, logistics and
communications capability they provided were useful to planning and executing the complex
inspections I was helping lead in Iraq.
This program resulted in the failed coup attempt in June 1996 that used UNSCOM as its
operational cover -- the coup failed, the Special Activities Staff ceased all cooperation with
UNSCOM, and we inspectors were left holding the bag. The Iraqis had every right to be concerned
that UNSCOM inspections were being used to target their president because, the truth be told,
they were.
Nowhere in Powell's presentation to the Security Council, or in any of his efforts to recast
that presentation as a good intention led astray by bad intelligence, does the reality of
regime change factor in. Regime change was the only policy objective of three successive U.S.
presidential administrations -- Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43.
Powell was a key player in two of these. He knew. He knew about the existence of the CIA's
Iraq Operations Group. He knew of the successive string of covert "findings" issued by U.S.
presidents authorizing the CIA to remove Saddam Hussein from power using lethal force. He knew
that the die had been cast for war long before Bush 43 decided to engage the United Nations in
the fall of 2002.
Powell Knew
Powell knew all of this, and yet he still allowed himself to be used as a front to sell this
conflict to the international community, and by extension the American people, using
intelligence that was demonstrably false. If, simply by drawing on my experience as an UNSCOM
inspector, I knew every word he uttered before the Security Council was a lie the moment he
spoke, Powell should have as well, because every aspect of my work as an UNSCOM inspector was
known to, and documented by, the CIA.
It is not that I was unknown to Powell in the context of the WMD narrative. Indeed, my name
came up during an
interview Powell gave to Fox News on Sept. 8, 2002, when he was asked to comment on a quote
from my speech to the Iraqi Parliament earlier that month in which I stated:
"The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government and others has not to date been
backed up by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of
weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for attacking the United
States. Void of such facts, all we have is speculation."
"We have facts, not speculation. Scott is certainly entitled to his opinion but I'm afraid
that I would not place the security of my nation and the security of our friends in the
region on that kind of an assertion by somebody who's not in the intelligence chain any
longer If Scott is right, then why are they keeping the inspectors out? If Scott is right,
why don't they say, 'Anytime, any place, anywhere, bring 'em in, everybody come in -- we are
clean?' The reason is they are not clean. And we have to find out what they have and what
we're going to do about it. And that's why it's been the policy of this government to insist
that Iraq be disarmed in accordance with the terms of the relevant UN resolutions."
UN inspectors in Iraq. (UN Photo)
Of course, in November 2002, Iraq did just what Powell said they would never do -- they let
the UN inspectors return without preconditions. The inspectors quickly exposed the fact that
the "high quality" U.S. intelligence they had been tasked with investigating was pure bunk.
Left to their own devices, the new round of UN weapons inspections would soon be able to give
Iraq a clean bill of health, paving the way for the lifting of sanctions and the continued
survival of Saddam Hussein.
Powell knew this was not an option. And thus he allowed himself to be used as a vehicle for
disseminating more lies -- lies that would take the U.S. to war, cost thousands of U.S. service
members their lives, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, all in the name of regime
change.
Back to Robert Draper. I spent a considerable amount of time impressing upon him the reality
of regime change as a policy, and the fact that the WMD disarmament issue existed for the sole
purpose of facilitating regime change. Apparently, my words had little impact, as all Draper
has done in his article is continue the false narrative that America went to war on the weight
of false and misleading intelligence.
Draper is wrong -- America went to war because it was our policy as a nation, sustained over
three successive presidential administrations, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. By 2002 the
WMD narrative that had been used to support and sustain this regime change policy was
weakening.
Powell's speech was a last-gasp effort to use the story of Iraqi WMD for the purpose it was
always intended -- to facilitate the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. In this light, Colin
Powell's speech was one of the greatest successes in CIA history. That is not the story,
however, Draper chose to tell, and the world is worse off for that failed opportunity.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet
Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm,
and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those
ofConsortium News.
PleaseContributeto Consortium
News on its 25th Anniversary
"... Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled at the behest of a rival political party. ..."
"... "miscarriage of justice" ..."
"... "collusion" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... the infamous dossier used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable ..."
New documents show the FBI was aware that the infamous dossier
used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable, and that the New York Times published false information
about the 'Russiagate' probe.
The two documents were published on Friday by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina),
as part of an ongoing probe of the FBI's investigation of Trump. One is a 59-page, heavily redacted
interview
of the "primary sub-source" for Christopher Steele, the British spy commissioned through a series of cut-outs by the
Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump during the 2016 election campaign.
While the identity of the source is hidden, the document makes it clear it was not a current or former Russian official, but a
non-Russian employee of Steele's British company, Orbis. The source's testimony seriously questioned the claims made in the dossier
– which is best known for the salacious accusation that Trump was being blackmailed by Russia with tapes of an alleged sex romp in
a Moscow hotel.
The second, and more intriguing, document is a five-page
printout
of a February 14, 2017 article from the New York Times, along with 13 notes by Peter Strzok, one of the senior FBI agents handling
the Russiagate probe. The article was published five days after the FBI interview with the sub-source, and Strzok actually shows
awareness of it (in note 11, specifically).
In the very first note, Strzok labeled as "misleading and inaccurate" the claim by the New York Times that the Trump
campaign had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials before the 2016 election, noting there was "no evidence"
of this.
Likewise, Strzok denied the FBI was investigating Roger Stone (note 10) – a political operative eventually indicted by Special
Counsel Robert Mueller over allegedly lying about (nonexistent) ties to WikiLeaks, whose sentence Trump recently commuted to outrage
from 'Russiagate' proponents. Nor was Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort on any calls involving Russian government officials,
contrary to claims by the Times (note 3).
Not only did the FBI know the story was false, in part based on the knowledge they had from Steele's source, but the recently
ousted FBI director Jim Comey had openly disputed it in June 2017. The paper stood by its reporting.
Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign
via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation.
Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals
all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled
at the behest of a rival political party.
The last two renewals, in April and June 2017, were requested after the sub-source interview. Commenting on the document release,
Sen. Graham called these two renewals a "miscarriage of justice" and argued that the FBI and the Department of Justice should
have stopped and re-evaluated their case.
Mueller eventually found no "collusion" between Trump and Russia as alleged by the Democrats, but not before a dozen
people – from Stone and Manafort to Trump's first national security adviser Michael Flynn and innocent Russian student Maria Butina
– became casualties of the investigation.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 236 13
Austin Rock 22 hours ago Staggering is the monumental deceitful effort to hitch Trump to Russia. And yet for MSM and their poodles
in the press no barb thrown is too outragious, no smear is too false enough. With Google, Twitter and Facebook on board we Europeans
are being played. But we Europeans are not as stupid as your average US punter. These pathetic fairy tales are an embarressement
to journalism.
Senate panel releases key FBI memo on Christopher Steele; reaction from John Solomon,
co-author of 'Fallout,' and Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence
Committee.
The
Trump-Russia collusion story continues to be eaten away, and these new notes from disgraced ex-FBI Agent Peter Strzok center on
The
New York Times
and their reporting that got the ball rolling on this media manufactured myth. Yes, it's about time we say
that because these documents, which analyzed the piece about Trump aides having contacts with Russian intelligence officials
before the 2016 election, has more utility being used to catch crap from birdcages now that's been exposed as a fraud. In 2017,
this
"bombshell" dropped
. Even at the outset, there was still no evidence of collusion. Just rumor and unsubstantiated gossip.
"The
officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation," that's what the
Times
had
in their piece. It's one of the many bombshells that turned out to be nothing burgers, part of the liberal media's Russia fetish
that turned into one of the biggest, if not
the biggest
, journalism fails ever. It's sad,
really. All one had to do was merely accept that Lady McBeth, aka Hillary Rodham Clinton, lost the 2016 election. Any person with
cognitive function knew that this story was just simply too good to be true. Second, when weeks and months go by and no evidence
arises, it's a dud. When multiple "breaks" in the case, arise and turn out to be garbage -- there's nothing to the story. It's not
real. It's a myth, but the anti-Trump opposition press kept pressing and pressing until we got a clown show the likes of which we
have never seen. Now, part of it is a bit annoying because we all knew the truth before these clowns did, but seeing these guys
fail and have their work just be totally trashed, burned to a crisp, and then pissed on is just pure gold. Two words that can be
applied to the entire Democrat-media complex: Suck. It.
So,
let's get to the notes that deliver a tomahawk to the face of the liberal media. Based on the FBI's notes, pretty much everything
in it was a lie. "Misleading, inaccurate, and no evidence" are the key phrases Strzok used concerning this fake news story. The
story said that Paul Manafort was plugged into the calls. The FBI said, "We are unaware of any calls with any Russian govt
official in which Manafort was a party."
The
publication said Roger Stone was part of the FBI's Russian inquiry. The FBI denied this. Then-FBI Director James Comey, who would
later be fired for cause in May of 2017, also disputed the story but the NYT decided to stand by it because 'orange man bad.'
Well, they do deserve Pulitzers I guess for being the biggest dupes in the business for taking fake information at face value.
Has the media learned that yet too? Probably not because they're all abjectly stupid people, but not all classified information
is true. It can be false. Remember that next time you report on leaks about North Korean Kim Jong-un being brain dead.
The
ripple effect from stories like this was severe. It led scores of reporters down a media-manufactured alternate reality that some
have not climbed out of yet. They took the blue pill and remained in wonderland.
"Ignorance is bliss," or maybe in this case just pure unadulterated idiocy.
You
guys were wrong. How many times do we have to hit you on the head with a baseball bat until you get it? You were wrong. Your
stories were trash, based in lies and false information and weaponized by Democrats to try and usurp a duly elected president
because you don't like him. You're all entitled brats who deserve an ass-kicking. And Barack Obama appears to be calling the
shots on some of the major battles in this fake news fiasco, specifically when it comes to Michael Flynn, who has been vindicated
regarding his role in this whole mess. He was innocent and targeted by former members of the Obama administration, including
former Vice President Joe Biden.
There's no question that Obama was slick, polished and well-spoken. However, as to this
idea of holding his feet to the fire, it doesn't explain why he got so cozy with Goldman
Sachs figures; went after Edward Snowden and did little to stem the dark tide of the war on
terror. I think he was a sell-out from the get-go.
And while this article makes a compelling case for Biden's loss of mental acuity, if
Donald Trump throws those barbs, there are
plenty of filmed segments of his own loss of words, his word salads, his nasal breathing,
possible use of inhaled drugs, and overall cognitive decline. Add in that many psychiatrists
have gone on record to discuss his malignant narcissism and clinical (dangerous) mental
illness.
A British court decision unmasks new evidence of FBI abuses in the Russia collusion
probe.
Warby's lengthy ruling unearthed a gem of new evidence to answer the question: Steele
kept his own notes of what he told FBI agents the first time he met them on July 5, 2016 in
London to discuss his anti-Trump Russia research.
And, Warby revealed, the notes make clear that Steele told his FBI handlers from the
get-go that the dossier's "ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton
presidential campaign."
And after Trump won the election, the judge added, Steele disclosed he gave copies of
his dossier to longtime Clinton friend Strobe Talbot in hopes it would get to the top of the
State Department
####
Plenty more at the link.
BiDumb has to win in November to make all this go away.
"... Top former [Obama] officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, are said to be targets of the Durham investigation. ..."
"... "The deep state is so deep that ppl get away w political crimes," wrote Grassley on Twitter. "Durham should be producing some fruit of his labor." ..."
Investigative reporter John Solomon says there's a "lot of activity" in U.S. Attorney John
Durham's criminal investigation of the Obama administration's probe of now-debunked claims of
Trump-Russia collusion during the 2016 election.
"My sources tell me there's a lot of activity. I'm seeing, personally, activity behind the
scenes [showing] the Department of Justice is trying to bring those first indictments, "
Solomon said in an interview with the Fox Business Network's Lou Dobbs
reported by the Washington Examiner .
"And I would look for a time around Labor Day to see the first sort of action by the
Justice Department."
Solomon said he's seeing "action consistent with building prosecutions and preparing for
criminal plea bargains."
"Until they bring it before the grand jury you never know if it's going to happen. I'm
seeing activity consistent with that. "
Top former [Obama] officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, are said to be targets of
the Durham investigation.
But Attorney General William Barr has said he doesn't expect Obama and former Vice President
Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to be subjects of a criminal
investigation.
Solomon said he is hearing from defense lawyers and people "on the prosecution side" that
complications with the coronavirus pandemic are "slowing down" the grand jury process.
"There is overwhelming evidence in the public record now that crimes were committed,"
Solomon said.
He cited "falsification of documents, false testimony, false representations before the FISA
court."
WND reported this week Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, said Durham should launch any prosecutions before the November election.
"The deep state is so deep that ppl get away w political crimes," wrote Grassley on
Twitter. "Durham should be producing some fruit of his labor."
A report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found at least 17 "significant" errors
or omissions related to the Obama administration's efforts to use the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act provisions against Trump.
WND reported former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova said the public shouldn't worry about whether
or not charges are filed against Obama and Biden.
"Shaming" them will undoubtedly happen, with or without charges, he argued in an interview
with Boston radio host Howie Carr.
"I happen to believe that the public shaming of former President Obama and Vice President
Biden is far more important than indicting them," he said.
So much happens so fast in a world with a 15-minute news cycle that it's difficult for a
journalist to stop and breathe, let alone ponder the meaning of the latest breathless
reporting.
As an example, it seems like it was months ago when the D.C. Court of Appeals ordered Judge
Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, but
it was actually less than two weeks ago. June 24 to be exact, but to Flynn it probably seems
like forever. No word from Sullivan about whether he intends to follow the order of the senior
court, or continue to stall in an effort to punish Lt. Gen. Flynn for his political crime of
supporting President Trump. But based on his record so far, Sullivan can probably be counted on
to drag his feet while thumbing his nose at justice.
Whether it is the Flynn case, or the persecution of one-time Trump adviser Roger Stone for a
procedural crime of lying before a malevolent Congress, the implicit reason behind all the
over-the-top harassment almost seems to be to goad Trump into pardoning his much-maligned
associates in order to create another fake news cycle as we head into the 2020 election. Nobody
asks, "Did you see what that corrupt judge did? Or what the Democrat-worshiping DOJ did?" It's
always " Did you hear what that crazy bastard Trump did?" )
It doesn't seem to matter to the mainstream media that evidence has mounted into the
stratosphere that Trump has been right all along about his campaign being illegally surveilled
by the Obama administration. It doesn't matter that Trump survived a two-plus year
investigation by a special counsel and was cleared of any kind of collusion with the Russians.
The Democrats and their agents in the Deep State know that whatever they do to harass Trump
will be treated as noble and patriotic by the corrupt media, and that whenever evidence
surfaces of their criminal behavior it will be promptly buried again.
Which brings us to the infamous handwritten notes by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok about
a White House meeting that surfaced in a recent filing in the Flynn case. Strzok had already
earned a prominent place in the "Wish I Hadn't Done That" Hall of Fame for his serial
confession via text message of not just marital infidelity but also constitutional perfidy. But
the half-page of notes released by Flynn's defense team rises to the level of a
history-altering "Oops!" Indeed, it could well be the Rosetta stone that allows us to penetrate
the secrets of the anti-Trump conspiracy that stretched from the FBI to the CIA, the Justice
Department and the White House.
What we know about the provenance of the notes comes from Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell,
who said they were written by Strzok about a meeting that took place on Jan. 4, 2017. The only
problem is that the cast of characters in the memo duplicates those who were in attendance at
the White House on Jan. 5, 2017, to discuss how the Obama administration should proceed in its
dealings with Flynn, who was accused of playing footsie with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
prior to assuming his official role as national security adviser. Attorney General William Barr
has gone on the record (on the "Verdict With Ted Cruz" podcast) that the notes actually
describe the Jan. 5 meeting.
If so, the notes strongly contradict Susan Rice's CYA "memo to self" where the Obama
national security adviser recounts the Jan. 5 meeting and stresses three times that President
Obama and his team were handling the Flynn investigation "by the book." Methinks the lady doth
protest too much, especially now that we have Strzok's contemporaneous notes to contradict her
memo, which suspiciously was written in the final minutes of the Obama administration as Donald
Trump was being sworn in at the Capitol.
From what we can tell, Strzok (unlike Rice) was not writing his memo to protect anyone. He
seems to have merely jotted down some notes about what various participants in the meeting
said, including President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rice, Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates and Strzok's boss -- FBI Director James Comey. Chances are, at this point Strzok had no
idea his dirty laundry was going to be aired or that his role as a master of the universe was
going to be toppled.
But to see the importance of these notes, we need to transcribe them from the cryptic
handwritten notes. Words and phrases that are outright guesses are reproduced in brackets.
Speakers are noted at the beginning of each line. "NSA" stands for Rice. "D" stands for Comey.
"DAG" stands for Yates. "VP" stands for Biden. "P" stands for Obama. "Cuts" is said to refer to
summaries of phone calls monitored under a FISA warrant to collect foreign intelligence.
NSA - D - DAG: Flynn cuts. Other [countries].
D - DAG: Lean forward on [illegible, but possibly "ambass" as in ambassador. Others have
speculated on "useless" or "unless," which don't fit the context, or "unclass" as in
"unclassified" or even a name beginning with m. We just don't know.]
VP: "Logan Act"
P: These are unusual times
VP: I've been on the Intel Committee for 10 years and I never
P: Make sure you look at thing[s] + have the right people on it
P: Is there anything I shouldn't be telling transition team?
D: Flynn -- > Kislyak calls but appear legit.
[Apple][??] - Happy New Year - Yeah right
The reasons why these nine lines are so important have been adequately explored by other
writers on most of the relevant topics. Most significantly from a political point of view is
confirmation that Biden lied when he said he had nothing to do with the criminal prosecution of
Flynn. The Logan Act is a more than 200-year-old statute that forbids ordinary Americans from
negotiating with foreign governments that have a dispute with the United States. No one has
ever been convicted under the law, and Flynn was not an ordinary American, but rather the
incoming national security adviser; nonetheless it was a central plank in the plan to give
Flynn enough rope to hang himself. The fact that quotes appear only around the words Logan Act
suggest that this was a direct quote from Biden.
In addition, the order by Obama presumably to Comey to "have the right people on it"
suggests that there was a political element to the investigation and that the president wanted
loyalists to handle it. What other explanation is there? Who exactly are the "wrong people" in
the FBI? (That's a rhetorical question. Obviously the wrong people were Strzok, Comey and their
buddies at the FBI and CIA who were wiretapping honest Americans and framing a president.)
Finally, and most importantly for Flynn and his attorneys, we have a contemporaneous account
of the FBI director assuring the president that Flynn's conversations with Kislyak were
"legit." In that case, why did Strzok reveal in an instant message on Jan. 4, 2017, the day
before this historic meeting, that the FBI agent in charge should NOT close the case against
Flynn even though it should have already been closed because no evidence had accrued against
him? If Comey thought the general's conversations with Kislyak were "legit," then why did
Strzok tell another FBI contact that the "7th floor [was] involved" in the decision to keep the
Flynn case alive. The seventh floor being where the offices of Comey and the rest of the top
FBI brass are located. Strzok was ecstatic to find out that the case had "serendipitously" not
been closed, and told his girlfriend Lisa Page, "Our utter incompetence actually helps us."
There seems to be no consensus among analysts about the context of Strzok's notes. According
to Rice's independent recollection of the Jan. 5 meeting, only the principals named above were
present. CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had
already been booted out of the meeting after giving a briefing on alleged Russian election
interference. It seems unlikely that Strzok would have been present in any capacity.
Andrew McCarthy at
National Review speculates that "Strzok's notes were taken when someone later briefed him
about the White House meeting that Strzok did not attend." The New
York Post concludes that the Strzok memo is "plainly Strzok's notes of FBI chief Jim
Comey's account." Certainly if Strzok were briefed by someone in attendance, it was most likely
Comey. But Ivan Pentchoukov of
The Epoch Times floats a much more interesting idea about how Strzok came to be in
possession of the facts he recorded in the memo.
"The on-the-fly nature of the notes suggest that he was either physically present or
listened in on a conference call," Pentchoukov speculates.
Well, the
Washington Post reports that "Strzok's lawyer told The Fact Checker that Strzok did not
attend the meeting," and then suggests that probably means "the notes may recount what someone
else - perhaps Comey - told him about the meeting." Yes, maybe so, but there is good reason not
to skate over the possibility that, as Pentchoukov puts it, Strzok "listened in" on the
conversation.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
This is indeed heady stuff, as it is beyond reason to think that Strzok was an invited
participant. The last thing anyone at that meeting would want is an independent account of what
was said as they planned how to entrap one of the incoming president's closest aides. Yet that
does not eliminate the chance that Strzok benefited from some kind of surveillance technique to
eavesdrop on the conversation, either with the knowledge of one person in the room or possibly
with none. Of course it is scary to think that the FBI was wiretapping the White House, but
they did it to Trump Tower, so who knows?
It is the nature of the notes themselves that lends credence to this speculation. If they
were written after the fact to memorialize a conversation Strzok had with Comey or someone
else, there is no way to account for the brevity and choppiness of the account. Rather than
just put "Logan Act" next to VP, an after-the-fact recitation would have been more likely to
specify, "The Vice President brought up the Logan Act as one statute that could be used to
prosecute Flynn's dangerous dealings with the Russian ambassador." And most suspiciously, there
is no explanation for why Strzok would have cut off the end of Biden's other contribution to
the conversation. "I've been on the Intel Committee for 10 years and I never," the transcript
goes. "Never what?" the reader wants to know.
Of course we can add the words ourselves: "Never heard of anyone being prosecuted for
talking to a foreign leader, especially not if they had a legitimate interest in establishing
relations with their counterpart prior to a new president taking office." If Strzok were making
leisurely notes while talking to his boss, or especially if he had gone back to his own office
and thought it worthwhile to record what he had been told, would it make any sense for him to
stop in mid-sentence?
No, it wouldn't. It only makes sense if, as Pentchoukov describes it, the notes were written
"on the fly." Certainly not with a tape recorder running, where one could establish an exact
transcript, but hurriedly, sloppily, furtively. That would also explain why the handwriting is
not exactly consistent with other known samples of Strzok's script. Presumably, the FBI has
validated the handwriting as Strzok's, but does the FBI have any reason to lie about that?
Hmm.
Ultimately, if Strzok is indeed the author, we need him to testify under oath exactly what
is in the notes, and how they came to be written. Hopefully the FBI, the attorney general or
someone else will declassify the extensive redactions above and below the nine lines that were
released. One has to imagine that in those passages, Strzok revealed his source for the
material quoted, as well as confirming the date of the meeting, and possibly the reason for the
meeting. He has quite a tale to tell -- one that could change history.
If there were even one Republican senator in charge of a committee who had the curiosity of
a 3-year-old, it is likely we could actually get to the bottom of the shenanigans that nearly
toppled a president and finally pin the "tale" on the donkey -- the Democratic donkey that
is.
But Republican senators in an election year have better things to do than protect and defend
the Constitution. There are fundraisers to attend, after all.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman - who was
accused of being coached by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff during
testimony when he told House committees that he "did not think it was proper" for President
Trump to ask Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate former VP Joe Biden during a
July 25 phone call - is retiring from the US Army after over 21 years, according to
CNN .
Vindman has endured a "campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation" spearheaded by
the President following his testimony in the impeachment inquiry last year, according to his
attorney, Amb. David Pressman. -
CNN
Last November, Vindman admitted to violating the chain of command when he reported his
concerns over a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelensky, in which Trump requested an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter over
corruption.
Vindman, a NSC Ukraine expert (who was asked three times to become their Defense Minister), claimed he
had no idea that Burisma, a natural gas company which paid Hunter to sit on its board, routed
over $3 million to accounts tied to Hunter Biden .
... ... ...
Vindman fell under scrutiny during the impeachment - and has been accused of leaking
knowledge of the July 25 call with Zelensky to the whistleblower whose complaint (after
consulting with Adam Schiff's office) sparked Trump's impeachment.
This arrogant and clueless neocon got only part of he deserved. He decided to play big
politics and was burned, although not as badly as he should be. So far he escaped prison.
Notable quotes:
"... History will remember him as an incompetent, arrogant, office gossip ..."
"... ! Both he and his brother should have been charged with mishandling classified information! ..."
Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman , a key impeachment witness
against President Trump , retired from the
Army Wednesday, with his lawyer citing "a campaign of bullying, intimidation and retaliation"
for cutting short his military career.
... ... ...
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., last Thursday announced her intention to block Senate confirmations for
1,123 senior U.S. Armed Forces promotions until Defense Secretary Mark
Esper confirms he will not block the "expected and deserved" promotion for
Vindman , an Iraq war veteran.
Duckworth, also an Iraq War veteran who served as a helicopter pilot, accused Trump of
trying to politicize the armed forces.
nlocker Leader 23s
Good riddance to traitorous rubbish. See ya, MR. Vindman.
RustynFL Leader 24s
The House of Representatives' sham impeachment inquiry was an act of political revenge
a) for losing the 2016 presidential election, and b) for impeaching Bill Clinton. It's as
simple as that. V. looked like he had trouble remembering what he was told to say. Wasn't
three rehearsals enough? He lied when he called it a "demand.' What demand? No demand.
"Favor." V didn't follow the chain of command. Then lies about it being a busy day. NO. He
was told what to say and who to go to. No officer can trust a subordinate that leaks, goes
public, etc for political or personal gain. No one trusts a man that should be charged with
sedition.
ᴅᴇsᴛʀᴜᴄᴛɪᴠᴇ-ᴀʟᴛʀᴜɪsᴛs
Leader 26s
That next chapter should be prison.
useyourhead19 Leader 31s
Bullying like doing everything possible to undermine a presidency
IveSeenthisbefore Leader 46s
This is a traitor! A very bad person who never accepted President Trump in his
heart.
RobertKearney45 Leader 1m
History will remember him as an incompetent, arrogant, office gossip of classified imformation! Both he and his brother should have been charged with mishandling classified
information!
oldmarine83 Leader 1m
Well now that that lying sack of poo is leaving, he can take that job of Defense
Minister of Ukraine. That's want he wants. Hopefully he will renounce his citizenship in
America and not receive a penny in retirement pay if he take that position in a foreign
country. Don't need people like him in the military. Need to sack EVERY Democrat in Congress.
And any Obama holdovers. Let them know what the unemployment line is like and how it works.
Cut the "retirement" pay also, since they REALLY HAVE NEVER WORKED since they went to the
house or senate.
nlocker Leader 16s ArizonaConservative738
Vindman broke the chain of command, leaked classified information, and helped the Dems
try to overthrow the President. He deserves prison.
..
"Three weeks into the war, Marine Sgt. Ed Chin got the order: Help the Iraqis celebrating in
Baghdad's Firdos Square topple the statue of Saddam Hussein.
"My captain comes over and he's got like this package. He hands it to me and he's like, he
tells me there's an American flag in there and when I get up there, you know, he's like, show
the boys the colors," said Chin.
Are you seriously incapable of making a connection regarding the hypocrisy of the US
Govt/US military wrapping an American Flag on the Saddam Statue and destroying it for a media
photo op while cheering about it? And the condemnation of the US Govt declaring statues
should not be destroyed?
Do you see no insanity regarding the US Regime illegally invading and destroying another
Nation and its statues (war crime w/millions dead)? The very same Nation celebrating a "bad"
Iraqi statue being destroyed is suddenly disgusted when its own statues are being destroyed
by its own people?
My point is obvious if you can step back from your myopic view. The US is a mentally ill
Nation ridden with hypocrisy. I personally do not put much merit into statues, cultural
idolatry comes to mind, just as foolish as religious idolatry.
So what are your thoughts on the destruction of the Saddam statue sanctioned by the US
govt and military?
@114 I expect V will be along at some point but here are my thoughts on the Saddam
statue.....
The US is ridden with hypocrisy as you say ....no surprise there. The statue was actually
pulled down by a rentamob of Iraqi Saddam haters while American troops high-fived each
other.
They wouldn't see anything wrong with pulling the statue down because Saddam was a 'bad
guy' and an American enemy.
Those same troops would probably not feel the same way about Confederate generals.....who
just happened to be Americans who kept slaves and picked the losing side. They would be seen
as major figures in American history.
That is how a lot of Americans would justify it. Of course it is rank hypocrisy..
There is not much "real" left in the the USA. Usually what we see is just different flavors
of far right and right.
Money quote: "Ah, for the good old days when lefties could be treated as a deluded minority rather than a vanguard party of
globalist imperialists. pl"
Notable quotes:
"... As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of waging wars for humanitarian ends. A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and Christopher Hitchens, would make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the process throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine’s Just War theory on the trash heap and paving the way for what was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II, Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a “targeted” assassination program." ..."
"... In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats (Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and by the angry Trumpists. ..."
"... Samantha Power is Irish bred and London born. She was schooled in Dublin till her mother emigrated to the US. Christiane Amanpour is British-Iranian. As far as I can determine she never has had US citizenship. ..."
"... WTF were they smoking when they decided to promote war to secure human rights??? So why did we let these halfwits in the country? ..."
"... Kerry seems is the perfect example of Democrats’ hypocritical ‘opposition’ to pointless and futile wars. Not that anybody remembers, but it was the liberal Bill Clinton who went to war in Yugoslavia and defanged the anti-war wing of the party. After Clinton Democrats only raised their voices against Republican wars and now have taken to criticizing Trump for not being belligerent enough!!! ..."
"... The same white men who stood three years ago Charlottesville to prevent the toppling of statues could be the backbone of a new anti-war movement ..."
"... The New York Times is not revolutionary, not by a very long shot. Neither are all the big corporations and foundations who've donated generously to the cause of BLM. ..."
"... America is not in the middle of a revolution — it is a reactionary putsch. About four years ago, the sort of people who had acquired position and influence as a result of globalisation were turfed out of power for the first time in decades. They watched in horror as voters across the world chose Brexit, Donald Trump and other populist and conservative-nationalist options. ..."
"... The essential idea is that neither the non Trump wing of the American establishment (more properly Global establishment still anchored tenuously in DC) nor the Trump wing want the voters to discuss the economy - it's too hot a subject. ..."
"... Way too hot since the financial crisis of 2007-08 followed the working class jobs overseas and south of the border in the 90s and inequality exceeded that of the gilded age. No. But they will discuss racism (and gender). It divides the country further than ever, deflects focus on wealth disparity (the establishment has no intention of ever equalizing wealth even a bit) and presto - gives corporate America and media a new policing tool in the form of mandatory workshops and summary job dismissals even more unsubstantiated than many of those with #MeToo. It enhances the academic totalitarians of political correctness with corporate / employer totalitarianism of "learn your inclusivity lessons reeducation camp" or else. Unions disappeared long ago and now this. ..."
"... Yes the stupidity is ominous. They act as though there is no potential for repurcussion. It's very peculiar. ..."
As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of waging wars for humanitarian ends.
A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and
Christopher Hitchens, would make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the process
throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine’s Just War theory on the trash heap and paving the way for what
was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II, Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a “targeted” assassination
program."
This is a serious article addressing a serious problem. If the "left" sells out on war
issues as they have done the last 20 years or so, there is no pushback against the permanent
war system. Those one-time leftists who have sold out are no longer really leftists,
especially once they are relying on the corrupt permanent spy state for their information and
support.
Interesting and correct observation. Allow me to throw in my own two cents with regards to
the rise of what is defined as the "anti-Anti War left". I should note that there are eerily
similar parallels between the rise of the New Left in the 60s that was the mix of socialist
democrats, sexual revolutionaries, flower-power hippies, anti-imperialist/anti-war activists,
and identitarianists (Huey Netwon, Cesar Chavez, MLK) etc. and today's BLM, Antifa, 'woke'
types, third-gen feminists, broke millennials.
While the former's rise in the Democratic
Party led to the exodus of Neoconservatives (former Trotskyists, Socialist and Marxists) to
the Conservative movement, the latter is also moving the New Democrats to the Right, but the
problem is that the current Political Right is mostly controlled by the Trumpists so these
New Democrat types (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Menendez, Biden etc.) are stuck between a hard
place and a rock.
In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats
(Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and
by the angry Trumpists.
Just to give you one example, last week a prototype New Democrat and long time congressman
(since 89) Elliot Engel of NY who fits well into this definition was defeated handily in the
NY-16 primaries by the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed candidate, Jamal Bowman. Mr.
Bowman, an African American is ideologically very similar to AOC, Tlaib, and Omar.
He won on
a platform of foreign policy endorsed by the left-zionists (ex-labor zionists) against the
likudnik right-wing zionist of Engles' which is very interesting since, Engel has been known
for his hawkish views on foreign policy and extremely pro-Israel and chaired the House
Foreign Affairs Committee recently.
Recently Sanders and the Democratic Socialists expressed their opposition to Bibi's
planned annexation of West-bank and adjacent Palestinian enclaves and threatened to to
cut-off the military aid to Israel if Bibi moved on with his plan.
Domestically, there are several seats up for re-election and especially two in Georgia and
Arizona Senate whose ppointed Republican candidates are in very shaky grounds versus their
democratic challengers. What is clear is that the New Democrat platforms are no longer
popular by the Democratic base and given recent events, it can be safely said that either the
most law and order and Trumpian candidates will win or the Democratic socialists endorsed
ones. So another problem for the New Dems.
Judging by my observation, the current trend is the alliance between the NeverTrumpers
(The Lincoln project, The Right Pac) like Bill Kristol and the
Reagan-to-Bush-43-neoconservatives (most of whom were Reagan Democrats in the late 70s and
80s themselves so nothing new for them) to push Trump out of office in their view before the
RNC in Aug and to make room for the New Democrats and also to restore their previous 20+
years of reigning over the Republican Party. If their plan becomes successful, in the post
2020 election we will see a political configuration resembling the 90s and early 2000s with
one major difference which is the introduction of several, in my opinion less that 10 seats
in the House reserved for the far-Left socialist Democrats.
And in terms of Foreign policy, everyone will get happy and the Blob/Borg think tank class
in D.C. will see business as usual as the Democratic Socialists will be "persuaded" to team
up with the New Democrats with regards to sending Troops to conduct humanitarian intervention
abroad (i.e. the Powell Doctrine) in exchange for domestic welfare programs, the
NeverTrumpers and the Republican hawks (Cotton, Graham, Rubio, Cruz, etc.) will have war
plans already written for them at AEI, Hudson and Heritage that focuses on China with the
help of the New Democrats and probably the Far-left.
Samantha Power is Irish bred and London born. She was schooled in Dublin till her mother
emigrated to the US. Christiane Amanpour is British-Iranian. As far as I can determine she
never has had US citizenship. Christopher Hitchens is English born, never visited America
unti he was 32. And even then kept his British citizenship for another 26 years, only
becoming a US citizen in 2007. Probably to take advantage of favorable US income tax on his
book earnings.
WTF were they smoking when they decided to promote war to secure human rights??? So why
did we let these halfwits in the country?
Seems to me we are better off by letting in a few more Sikh farmers from India or more
wannabee restaurant owners from Ethiopia. Or maybe even more wannabee bodega empresarios from
south of our border.
Anyone remember John Kerry, who criticized the anti-war movement and enlisted and served
in Vietnam, only to opportunistically turn against the war. As long as the winds blew
anti-war, he continued to posture that way. Then he reversed course, maybe sensing an SOS
opportunity, and voted for the War in Iraq, meanwhile posturing against it on the grounds
that it wasn’t being fought right!
Kerry seems is the perfect example of Democrats’ hypocritical
‘opposition’ to pointless and futile wars. Not that anybody remembers, but it was
the liberal Bill Clinton who went to war in Yugoslavia and defanged the anti-war wing of the
party. After Clinton Democrats only raised their voices against Republican wars and now have
taken to criticizing Trump for not being belligerent enough!!!
The "anti-antiwar left" is of course an oxymoron. In reality, they are neo-McCarthyites,
neocons, and Israel-firsters. Nothing new. They were never leftists to begin with and
certainly never will be.
To add onto the comments by Polish Janitor regarding Jamaal Bowman, I have this to say.
Just like AOC, he'll cuck out to Israel. He'll take the money and he'll probably take that
"educational" trip to Israel as well. While he's there, would anyone be surprised if he had a
hot time with some honey pie and they got him on Kodak? They'll only drop hints about the
stick, in the meantime, they'll be stuffing his face with carrots as he comes around to the
Zionist agenda.
The same white men who stood three years ago Charlottesville to prevent the toppling of
statues could be the backbone of a new anti-war movement, if only conservatives weren't
afraid of being called 'racist' by people who hate them anyway.
To better get one's bearings regarding what's going on I highly recommend this Spectator
article to the committee. Although BLM and other nefarious types referred to as Antifa
certainly do pass the anarchist test and Marxist test it's critical the committee understand
that the whole thing is being managed by a wing of the establishment.
The New York Times is
not revolutionary, not by a very long shot. Neither are all the big corporations and
foundations who've donated generously to the cause of BLM.
Editorial talents at NYT
instigated the wholesale rewriting of American history over a year ago with their fraudulent
1619 project which says American history began in that year with the importation of African
slaves.
But it's real thesis is that the revolution of 1776 (an inspiration to people
everywhere), was not undertaken to free the thirteen colonies from the tyranny of King
George - no - it was done for the sole reason of perpetuation of slavery because Washington
and other colonial land owners feared that the institution of slavery would be made illegal
by their then British overlords. I kid you not.
The NY Times. Pure revisionism of the worst
sort. But the ends which this revisionism serve, as do the subsequent BLM riots and mindless
iconoclasms, are revealed in this piece:
(This Revolution isn't What it Looks Like). Here's a brief excerpt - it's a management
device. Matt Taibbi has a treatment nearly as good but too diffuse and witty for these
purposes, under the title "Year Zero" on his blog, but it is behind a paywall. Many
illustrative exames though.
Spectator first few paragraphs..
Bear with this. What they're doing is designed to infuriate and disable critical
understanding as they proceed to carry the day in real time.
QUOTE:
America is not in the middle of a revolution — it is a reactionary putsch. About
four years ago, the sort of people who had acquired position and influence as a result of
globalisation were turfed out of power for the first time in decades. They watched in horror
as voters across the world chose Brexit, Donald Trump and other populist and
conservative-nationalist options.
This deposition explains the storm of unrest battering American cities from coast to coast
and making waves in Europe as well. The storm’s ferocity — the looting, the mobs,
the mass lawlessness, the zealous iconoclasm, the deranged slogans like #DefundPolice —
terrifies ordinary Americans. Many conservatives, especially, believe they are facing a
revolution targeting the very foundations of American order.
But when national institutions bow (or kneel) to the street fighters’ demands, it
should tell us that something else is going on. We aren’t dealing with a Maoist or
Marxist revolt, even if some protagonists spout hard-leftish rhetoric. Rather, what’s
playing out is a counter-revolution of the neoliberal class — academe, media, large
corporations, ‘experts’, Big Tech — against the nationalist revolution
launched in 2016. The supposed insurgents and the elites are marching in the streets
together, taking the knee together.
They do not seek a radically new arrangement, but a return to the pre-Trump, pre-Brexit
status quo ante which was working out very well for them. It was, of course, working out less
well for the working class of all races, who bore the brunt of their preferred policy mix:
open borders, free trade without limits, an aggressive cultural liberalism that corroded
tradition and community, technocratic ‘global governance’ that neutered democracy
and politics as such.
When national institutions bow to the street fighters’ demands, it tells us
something else is going on
...Did you realize that the Black Lives Matter group only has 14 local chapters in America
and 3 in Canada? I don't think there are many actual Antifa members out there either. Now of
course a few determined troublemakers can cause a lot of problems but still I can't see how
the country is in real danger.
Probably the real danger here is that these groups get moral support from nonradical
people for radical actions and policies. Right now there are a lot more people against
getting rid of the police than are for it. Now if that changed I would get worried. I have to
admit that I don't like the fact that we do not know who's funding the radicals and that many
are anonymous but I am not afraid of them. I can't imagine a situation in which they would
win and we would lose over time.
No it doesn't, not that I know of. It was the brainchild of Nikole Hannah-Jones working
since 2015 for the times, who received a 2020 Pulitzer prize for the project which initially
was presented in the Times magazine for the 400th anniversary of 1619 when it is claimed that
enslaved Africans first arrived to the American colonies. However it mushroomed into
something much larger and won the award. It was to investigate the legacy of slavery but with
its claim that the true founding of the United States was in 1619 rather than 1776, it drew
criticism from several historians. The controversy was conducted in Politico and on the pages
of the World Socialist Web Site. See here:
You will find links to several of the articles of the project, including: "America Wasn't
a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One", essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones and "American
Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation", essay by Matthew Desmond.
I prefaced the intro to the Spectator article with mention of the Times award winning
project because it is vital cultural- historical background to what's transpired since George
Floyd incident of May 25.
My purpose was not to focus on that revisionist project though one
may investigate it at leisure, but the reactionary establishment counter coup to the 2016
election of which the events of May 25 et seq are the most recent chapter - chapters one and
two being Russiagate and impeachment.
Taibbi, in his latest which parallels the Spectator
piece, does think to mention it. The essential idea is that neither the non Trump wing of the
American establishment (more properly Global establishment still anchored tenuously in DC)
nor the Trump wing want the voters to discuss the economy - it's too hot a subject.
Way too
hot since the financial crisis of 2007-08 followed the working class jobs overseas and south
of the border in the 90s and inequality exceeded that of the gilded age. No. But they will
discuss racism (and gender). It divides the country further than ever, deflects focus on
wealth disparity (the establishment has no intention of ever equalizing wealth even a bit)
and presto - gives corporate America and media a new policing tool in the form of mandatory
workshops and summary job dismissals even more unsubstantiated than many of those with
#MeToo. It enhances the academic totalitarians of political correctness with corporate /
employer totalitarianism of "learn your inclusivity lessons reeducation camp" or else. Unions
disappeared long ago and now this.
From Taibbi:
It’s the Fourth of July, and revolution is in the air. Only in America would it look
like this: an elite-sponsored Maoist revolt, couched as a Black liberation movement whose
canonical texts are a corporate consultant’s white guilt self-help manual, and a New
York Times series rewriting history to explain an election they called wrong.
Much of America has watched in quizzical silence in recent weeks as crowds declared war on
an increasingly incoherent succession of historical symbols. Maybe you nodded as Confederate
general Albert Pike was toppled or even when Christopher Columbus was beheaded, but it got a
little weird when George Washington was emblazoned with “Fuck Cops” and set on
fire, or when they went after Ulysses S. Grant, abolitionist Colonel Hans Christian Heg,
“Forward,” (a seven-foot-tall female figure meant to symbolize progress), the
Portland, Oregon “Elk statue,” or my personal favorite, the former slave Miguel
de Cervantes, whose cheerful creations Don Quixote and Sancho Panza were apparently mistaken
for reals and had their eyes lashed red in San Francisco.
Was a What the Fuck? too much to ask? It was! In the space of a few weeks the level of
discourse in the news media dropped so low, the fear of being shamed as a deviationist so
high, that most of the weirder incidents went uncovered. Leading press organs engaged in
real-time Soviet-style airbrushing. Here’s how the Washington Post described a movement
that targeted Spanish missionary Junipero Serra, Abraham Lincoln (a “single-handed
symbol of white supremacy,” according to UW-Madison students), an apple cider press
sculpture, abolitionist Mathias Baldwin, and the first all-Black volunteer regiment in the
Civil War, among others:
Across the country, protesters have toppled statues of figures from America’s sordid
past — including Confederate generals — as part of demonstrations against racism
and police violence.
The New York Times, once the dictionary definition of “unprovocative,”
suddenly reads like Pol Pot’s Sayings of Angkar. Heading into the Fourth of July
weekend, the morning read for upscale white Manhattanites was denouncing Mount Rushmore,
urging Black America to arm itself, and re-positioning America alongside more deserving
historical parallels in a feature about caste systems:
For 150 years the US treated its defeated internal enemy with respect in the interest of
re-unification and reconciliation. Now that is gone destroyed by Marxist vanguard
conspiratorial parties like antifa and BLM and the the power hungry Democrat Party pols who
have made a deal with their soul mate extremists. Well, laissez les bon temps roulez!
Yes the stupidity is ominous. They act as though there is no potential for repurcussion.
It's very peculiar. Maybe they think oh well, there's been plenty of riots over the years.
What ever happened? Didn't we get OJ freed? Didn't they pass civil rights legislation back in
the day? And as for right now - aren't all the big people taking the knee - aren't
corporations endorsing us? Isn't Twitter censoring in our favor? The mayor of New York City -
wasn't he all set to paint a black lives matter mural onto 5th avenue opposite Trump tower
before postponing it to paint one in Harlem instead?
Yes, all true. I don't think they've detected how furious people are getting with their
behavior though. The tide is turning - CHAZ is gone, the conventions loom.
Long term I see nothing to be optimistic about. If Trump wins the counter coups will
continue. If Biden, with a female minority VP who may become President -- good luck. Remember
the Tea Party reaction ensuing on the heels of the first African American President? Reaction
will be quite as bad at least with Trump, his family and his base still very much on the
scene and infuriated.
But the oligarchs have seen their assets rise by hundreds of billions of dollars in a few
short months. The surviving owners consolidate. People will be forced to work for peanuts.
Evictions and repossessions are coming soon.
Last week Turkey brought two MIM-23 Hawk air defense systems to the al-Watiyah Airbase.
Last night they were bombed by either French, UAE, Egyptian or Russian mercenary airplanes.
Officially the LNA (Hafter) has taken responsibility for the bombing. Whoever did this had a
message to Turkey: Stop trying to break our red lines.
Thanks for the link to the Egypt/Libya article, b. It's a rare insight into the
often-hidden complexities behind armed conflict. Thanks too for Caitlin J's opinion of
AmeriKKKa's two Right-wing Crank parties. She makes it easier to laugh about their un-funny
antics.
Slightly off topic, but I think Caitlin could be onto something worthwhile with her Utopia
Prepper meme (whether she invented it or not). The way things are going, Hell could freeze
over before sanity emerges in Western Political circles. Prompted by her optimism, I intend
to devote an hour every Sunday afternoon to Utopia Prepping and contemplate the many
potential delights which a mildly more Utopian world would facilitate. There's way too much
negative thinking at present and it's NOT accidental. We'll never get to Utopia if we don't
plan what we'll do when we arrive...
Last week Turkey brought two MIM-23 Hawk air defense systems to the al-Watiyah Airbase. Last
night they were bombed by either French, UAE, Egyptian or Russian mercenary airplanes.
Officially the LNA (Hafter) has taken responsibility for the bombing. Whoever did this had a
message to Turkey: Stop trying to break our red lines.
FBI does have strong levers on Trump. This is the essence of the "Deep State" concept --
intelligence agencies became unhinged and work as a powerful political actors.
Notable quotes:
"... Thank you Mina, yes that or the deep state throwing down the gauntlet. I don't think we can assume that Trump actually has control of the FBI. If he did he would likely have deep sixed the Democrazis through the Awan family spy and blackmail scam. But he didn't. They and Debbie Wasserman Shultz were protected/had dirt on DT. ..."
Maxwell's arrest makes me wonder if it is not about Trump throwing down the gauntlet?
Thank you Mina, yes that or the deep state throwing down the gauntlet. I don't think we can
assume that Trump actually has control of the FBI. If he did he would likely have deep sixed
the Democrazis through the Awan family spy and blackmail scam. But he didn't. They and Debbie
Wasserman Shultz were protected/had dirt on DT.
If the kiddy fiddlers get outed following Ghislaine dropping some of her likely thousands
of hours of home movies then that includes Trump and Biden.
In the fetid atmosphere of
accusations against pussy grabbers and finger f#ckers and hair sniffers neither could
survive. The pack will run rabid.
Is there a woman in the house? Yes, they cried AND she has experience!! Plus the campaign will be televised and it would be a virtual campaign because Covid. No
need to rig audience, the polls or the balllot.
It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in
American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds
of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of
embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory
refuses to die.
Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece.
Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page ,
George Papadopoulos ,
Michael Flynn ,
Paul Manafort ,
Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee
transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic
computers, including the
DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it
is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was
without basis .
It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail,
sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by
Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary
source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor."
Though the FBI was
aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless
used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen
flat on its face. The "
troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet
Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent
of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's
ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published
after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover,
has dropped its charges
against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's
special counsel probe.
Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the
foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled.
The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of
mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.
It Didn't Start With
Trump
The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to
hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the
United States has
exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in
the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color
Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border,
despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand "
one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.
Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United
States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and
communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another
Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover,
Washington has pursued one disastrous
diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another
round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking
point. That, however, has changed.
The Crisis They Needed
The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed "
the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the
fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars"
in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the
usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers,
journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire.
Something had to be done.
In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks
published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her
campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak
became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with
Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a
Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.
By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians
rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which
was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11
attacks , tantamount to
Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938
Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon
issued a
pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking
story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or
rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.
The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American
democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with
the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of
them playing both
roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports,
clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were
blown up .
A
large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that
Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power.
For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate
progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating
space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "
Stress Fractures
Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First"
and slammed NATO as "
obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of
the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.
Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to
join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the
measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir
Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against
Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly
unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto
would bring, even from his own party.
Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with
NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the
establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a
few months later, the administration would put out its National
Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from
counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.
On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing
course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the
Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a
pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.
Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration
helped to install
-- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
In an irony noticed by
few , some of the arms went to
open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National
Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some
of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to
out-and-out white supremacists.
Ukraine's
bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country
has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took
office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a
favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of
election-meddling.
Weaponizing Ukraine
The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval
Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution
as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia,
casting it in the role of an aggressive ,
expansionist power.
Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to
sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with
Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators --
including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security
forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.
Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama
administration poured millions of
dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding
activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed
color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while
positioning the most
U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.
The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass
region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted
their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror"
that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow,
Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly
predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.
In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a
more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The
annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming
that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment
western polling firms have since
corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually
triggering a raft of sanctions from the
U.S. and the EU (and more
recently, from
Trump himself ).
The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution
-- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored
the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression"
in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler,
driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016
election.
Succumbing to Hysteria
While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of
his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse
course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's
previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed
as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture
toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.
Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press
conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA
Director John Brennan declared it an
act of treason , while CNN gravely
contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball
-- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel
probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further
emboldening the claims of conspiracy.
Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to
do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the
most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of
opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with
Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.
Sanctions!
After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar
to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the
Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.
In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed
on Moscow in a highly
elaborate storyline that ultimately fell
apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western
governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled
60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in
response to the election-meddling allegations.
Though Trump had called to lift rather
than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press
coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits
of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.
Goodbye INF, RIP
OST
By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with
Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties
and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles
-- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.
At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national
security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence
to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control
pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had
violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether
it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms
and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.
After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned
munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the
treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise
missiles expressly banned under the INF.
Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower,
but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former
Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange
surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in
the post-Soviet world.
Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's
implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant
advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared
his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace
it.
Quid Pro Quo
With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion
coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's
enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between
Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.
During the call ,
Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate,
and to look into potential
corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an
active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.
Less than two months later, a " whistleblower
" -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent
concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his
complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face
meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a
major contender in the 2020 race.
The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a
whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe,
the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave
offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.
At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats
revived George W.
Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to
argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed
from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence
weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure
in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion
and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.
The End of New START?
The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing
the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in
the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on
the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset
clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.
With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic
throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign
trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation
skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.
The administration has
demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on
Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a
deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has
refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the
treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.
A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown
willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few
remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.
Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy
allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily
invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet,"
regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike
rhetoric.
Running for an Arms Race
As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is
also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has
fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it
off.
Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed
limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually
assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects,
including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in
2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which
also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .
Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President
Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year
nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration
has embraced the initiative with open arms, even
adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.
In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China
into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway.
After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning
out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class
of
low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the
threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also
mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved
the idea for now.
A Runaway Freight Train
As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have
become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger
hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the
relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with
Moscow.
The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from
hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press,
fueling a whole new round of election-meddling
allegations .
Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His
presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled
diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along
with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over
Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.
Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian
collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence
by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC
regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to
Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement
placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate
introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to
Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."
Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up
the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment
that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on
the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval
Office next.
It is not just senility. Looks like Ukrainegate is not enough for her and she wants to throw kitchen sink at Trump. Charging for "alleged"
action is directly from Stalin's NKVD practice
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for US sanctions against Russia's intelligence
service over bounties that it reportedly offered Taliban militants to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan.
This is an attempt to move Trump in the direction of more harsher politics toward Russia. So not Bolton's but Obama ears are
protruding above this dirty provocation.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action. ..."
"... Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings. But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee. ..."
"... "Who can forget how 'successful' interrogators can be in getting desired answers?" writes Ray McGovern, who served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Under the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques," Khalid Sheik Mohammed famously made at least 31 confessions, many of which were completely false. ..."
"... This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe. ..."
"... The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves. ..."
"... Not only did CIA et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story), but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway). ..."
"... Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan. They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they? ..."
"... Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the geographical position of the country. ..."
"... As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and lied about the fact they were losing the whole time. ..."
"... the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so. ..."
"... Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. ..."
"... And a fourth CIA goal: it undermines Trump's relationship with the military. ..."
"... Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump. ..."
"... The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out, because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox, and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's. ..."
Bombshell report
published by The New York Times Friday alleges that Russia paid dollar bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S
troops. Obscured by an extremely bungled White House press response, there are at least three serious flaws with the reporting.
The article alleges that GRU, a top-secret unit of Russian military intelligence, offered the bounty in payment for every U.S.
soldier killed in Afghanistan, and that at least one member of the U.S. military was alleged to have been killed in exchange for
the bounties. According to the paper, U.S. intelligence concluded months ago that the Russian unit involved in the bounties was also
linked to poisonings, assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe. The Times reports that United States intelligence
officers and Special Operations forces in Afghanistan came to this conclusion about Russian bounties some time in 2019.
According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed
on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement Saturday night that neither Trump nor Vice President Pence
"were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday."
On Sunday night, Trump tweeted that not only was he not told about the alleged intelligence, but that it was not credible."Intel
just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP" Pence, Trump wrote Sunday
night on Twitter.
Ousted National Security Advisor John Bolton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that Trump was probably claiming ignorance
in order to justify his administration's lack of response.
"He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it," said Bolton.
Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that
he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings.
But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee.
The explanations for what exactly happened, and who was briefed, continued to shift Monday.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany followed Trump's blanket denial with a statement that the intelligence concerning
Russian bounty information was "unconfirmed." She didn't say the intelligence wasn't credible, like Trump had said the day before,
only that there was "no consensus" and that the "veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated," which happens
to almost completely match the Sunday night statement from the White House's National Security Council.
Instead of saying that the sources for the Russian bounty story were not credible and the story was false, or likely false, McEnany
then said that Trump had "not been briefed on the matter."
"He was not personally briefed on the matter," she said. "That is all I can share with you today."
It's difficult to see how the White House thought McEnany's statement would help, and a bungled press response like this is communications
malpractice, according to sources who spoke to The American Conservative.
Let's take a deeper dive into some of the problems with the reporting here:
1. Anonymous U.S. and Taliban sources?
The Times article repeatedly cites unnamed "American intelligence officials." The Washington Post and The
Wall Street Journal articles "confirming" the original Times story merely restate the allegations of the anonymous
officials, along with caveats like "if true" or "if confirmed."
Furthermore, the unnamed intelligence sources who spoke with the Times say that their assessment is based "on interrogations
of captured Afghan militants and criminals."
That's a red flag, said John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that captured senior
al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want to hear,"
he said in an interview with The American Conservative . "There's no evidence here, there's no proof."
Kiriakou believes that the sources behind the report hold important clues on how the government viewed its credibility.
"We don't know who the source is for this. We don't know if they've been vetted, polygraphed; were they a walk-in; were they
a captured prisoner?"
If the sources were suspect, as they appear to be here, then Trump would not have been briefed on this at all.
With this story, it's important to start at the "intelligence collection," said Kiriakou. "This information appeared in the
[CIA World Intelligence Review] Wire, which goes to hundreds of people inside the government, mostly at the State Department and
the Pentagon. The most sensitive information isn't put in the Wire; it goes only in the PDB."
"If this was from a single source intelligence, it wouldn't have been briefed to Trump. It's not vetted, and it's not important
enough. If you caught a Russian who said this, for example, that would make it important enough. But some Taliban detainees saying
it to an interrogator, that does not rise to the threshold."
2. What purpose would bounties serve?
Everyone and their mother knows Trump wants to pull the troops out of Afghanistan, said Kiriakou.
"He ran on it and he has said it hundreds of times," he said. "So why would the Russians bother putting a bounty on U.S. troops
if we're about to leave Afghanistan shortly anyway?"
That's leaving aside Russia's own experience with the futility of Afghanistan campaigns, learned during its grueling 9-year
war there in the 1980s.
The Taliban denies it accepted bounties from Russian intelligence.
"These kinds of deals with the Russian intelligence agency are baseless -- our target killings and assassinations were ongoing
in years before, and we did it on our own resources," Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, told The New York Times
. "That changed after our deal with the Americans, and their lives are secure and we don't attack them."
The Russian Embassy in the United States called the reporting
"fake news."
While the Russians are ruthless, "it's hard to fathom what their motivations could be" here, said Paul Pillar, an academic
and 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, in an interview with The American Conservative. "What would they
be retaliating for? Some use of force in Syria recently? I don't know. I can't string together a particular sequence that makes
sense at this time. I'm not saying that to cast doubt on reports the Russians were doing this sort of thing."
3. Why is this story being leaked now?
According to U.S. officials quoted by the AP,
top officials in the White House "were aware of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban
for the deaths of Americans" in early 2019. So why is this story just coming out now?
This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the
President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe.
The NYT story serves to bolster the narrative that Trump sides with Russia, and against our intelligence community estimates and
our own soldiers lives.
The stories "are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have been the main objective,"
writes McGovern. "There [Trump] goes again -- not believing our 'intelligence community; siding, rather, with Putin.'"
"I don't believe this story and I think it was leaked to embarrass the President," said Kiriakou. "Trump is on the ropes in the
polls; Biden is ahead in all the battleground states."
If these anonymous sources had spoken up during the impeachment hearings, their statements could have changed history.
But the timing here, "kicking a man when he is down, is extremely like the Washington establishment. A leaked story like this
now, embarrasses and weakens Trump," he said. "It was obvious that Trump would blow the media response, which he did."
The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia
in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of
the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington
Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work
has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania.
Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
Caitlin Johnstone was the first journalist to question this NYT expose' several days ago in her blog. After looking into
it, I had to agree with her that the story was junk reporting by a news source eager to stick it to Trump for his daily insults.
NYT must love the irony of a "fake news" story catching fire and burning Trump politically. After all, paying people to kill
their own enemies? That is a "tip," not a bounty. It is more of an intel footnote than the game-changer in international relations
as asserted by Speaker Pelosi on TV as she grabbed her pearls beneath her stylish COVID mask.
I was surprised that Ms. Boland could not think of any motivation for leaking the story right now given recent grousing
on the Hill about Trump's inviting Putin to G7 over the objections of Merkel and several other NATO heads of state. I even
posted a congratulatory message in Defense One yesterday to the US Intel community for mission accomplished.
Not only did CIA
et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story),
but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw
from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway).
That "bounty" story never passed the smell test, even to my admittedly untrained nose. My real problem is that it's a story
in the first place, given that Trump campaigned on a platform that included bringing the boys home from sand hills like Afghanistan;
yet here we are, four years later, and we're still there.
Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan.
They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they?
Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so
why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the
geographical position of the country.
This whole story is completely ridiculous. Totally bogus.
As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If
Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and
lied about the fact they were losing the whole time.
Of course people are trying to kill US military in Afghanistan. If I lived in Afghanistan, I'd probably hate them too. And
let's not forget that just a few weeks ago the 82nd airborne was ready to kill American civilians in DC. The military is our
enemy too!
Moreover, the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of
their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so.
The purported bounty program doesn't help Russia, but the anonymous narrative does conveniently serve several CIA purposes:
1. It makes it harder to leave Afghanistan.
2. It keeps the cold war with Russia going along.
3. It damages Trump (whose relationship with the CIA is testy at best).
Then there's the question of how this supposed intelligence was gathered. The CIA tortures people, and there's no reason
to believe that this was any different.
1. Russia wants a stable Afghanistan. Not a base for jihadis.
2. The idea that Russia has to encourage Afghans to kill Invaders is a hoot. They don't ever do that on their own.
3. Not only do Afghans traditionally need no motivation to kill infidel foreign Invaders, but Russia would have to be incredibly
stupid to bring more American enmity on itself.
Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies
had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Either that, or you're just cynical. You'll espouse anything, however absurd and full of lies, as long as it damages Trump.
I don't have a clue if this bounty story is correct, but I can imagine plenty of reasons why the Russians would do it. It's
easy enough to believe it or believe it was cooked up by CIA as you suggest.
There will be one of these BS blockbusters every few weeks until the election. There are legions of buried-in democrat political
appointees that will continue to feed the DNC press. It will be non-stop. The DNC press is shredding the 1st amendment.
Not shredding the First Amendment, just shining light on the pitfalls of a right to freedom of speech. There are others
ramifications to free speech we consider social goods.
These aren't buried-in democrats. These people could care less which political party the President is a member of. They
only care that the President does what they say. Political parties are just to bamboozle the rubes. They are the real power.
The best defence that the WSJ and Fox News could muster was that the story wasn't confirmed as the NSA didn't have the same
confidence in the assessment as the CIA. "Is there anything else to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious
incident of the denial from the White House", "There was no denial from the White House". "That was the curious incident".
I note that Fox News had buried the story "below the scroll" on their home page - if they had though the story was fake,
the headlines would be screaming at MSM.
Pravda was a far more honest and objective news source than The New York Times is. I say that as someone who
read both for long periods of time. The Times is on par with the National Enquirer for credibility, with the
latter at least being less propagandistic and agenda-driven.
Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest
effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump.
The extent to which the contemporary Left is driven by a level of Russophobia unseen even by the most stalwart anti-Communists
on the Right during the Cold War is truly something to behold. I think at bottom it comes down to not liking Putin or Russia
because they refuse to get on board with the Left's social agenda.
The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out,
because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox,
and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return
property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it
western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's.
The Contempary left wants Russia to be Woke, Broke, Godless, and Gay.
The democrats are now the cheerleaders of the warfare -welfare state,, the marriage between the neolibs-neocons under the
Democrat party to ensure that President Trump is defeated by the invade the world, invite the world crowd.
"The Trumpies are right in that this was obviously a leak by the intel community designed to hurt Trump. But what do you
expect...he has spent 4 years insulting and belittling them. They are going to get their pound of flesh."
Intel community was behind an attempted coup of Trump. He has good reason not to trust them and insulting is only natural.
Hopefully John Durham will indict several of them
Interesting take. I certainly take anything anyone publishes based on anonymous sources with a big grain of salt,
especially when it comes from the NYT...
Bartiromo's interview with Barr on
"Sunday Morning Futures," is the first time the Attorney General has given a time frame for
the information. He also noted that he was surprised by the lack of public interest in Durham's
investigation.
Unfortunately, in the opinion of this writer, the lack of public interest in the Durham
probe may have more to do with the Justice Department's secrecy to discuss the investigation
publicly and the failure – as of yet – to indict or hold many of those involved
legally accountable for their actions.
Although Barr has been the most informative on the Durham investigation during his
interviews, other Justice Department officials have been less than cooperative when asked about
developments in the probe and therefore making it less likely to garner public interest.
Durham's investigation, however, is expanding on the evidence amassed by both Congress and
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's December report. That report revealed
numerous omissions and lies in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application on Carter
Page, a short term 2016 Trump campaign volunteer.
"So that has been surprising to me, that people aren't concerned about civil liberties and
the integrity of our governmental process in terms of the future of Durham's investigation,"
Barr said. "You know, he's pressing ahead as hard as he can. And I expect that, you know, we
will have some developments hopefully before the end of the summer." Still, Barr made it clear
that Durham's probe is expected to continue passed the November's election.
He noted one caveat, that depends "on who wins the election."
He also discussed with Bartiromo the unmasking of Trump campaign officials during the
2016 elections saying, "I would say it's unusual for an outgoing administration, high level
officials, to be unmasking very, you know, very much in the days they're preparing to leave
office. Makes you wonder what they were doing."
Obama did the JCPOA because he was forced to. The Syrian War was taking longer than
expected. The thinking in the early part of the war was that "the road to Tehran runs
through Damascus".
In fact, JCPOA was so never ratified by US Congress. That's why Trump could so easily end
US participation (as intended/expected). Iran has always been in the cross-hairs. The only
question is one of timing.
Obama also tried to milk the "Iran peace agreement" for public relations benefits but this
couldn't cover his warmongering and war crimes:
his failure to stop the wars in Iraq (Obama wanted to stay but Iraq demanded that US
troops be subject to US laws) and Afghanistan;
his free pass to CIA for rendition and torture (he actually outsourced it to other
countries) and his nonchalance regarding NSA spying;
his failure to close Guantanamo (yet another broken campaign promise);
his extra-legal bombing campaign in Libya (UN had only authorized a No-Fly Zone) -
spearheaded by his SecState Hillary Clinton;
his covert war in Syria (with John McCain's blessing);
his "wilful decision" to allow the rise of ISIS (which many now believe is
sponsored by CIA/Mossad/MIT/KSA).
Attorney General William Barr is bringing increasing clarity to the focus of U.S. Attorney
John Durham's criminal investigation into the conduct of the Russia collusion
investigators.
In a series of recent interviews, the nation's chief enforcement officer has dropped some
big hints about what is under investigation, who is and isn't being investigated, and what
evidence uncovered by the Durham team is emerging as important.
Barr also has suggested what events in the timeline are emerging as important in the 2016-17
effort to find dirt on President Trump and his campaign and transition team.
Here are the seven most important revelations Barr has made over the last month.
1.
Timetable: Durham's investigation has been slowed by the pandemic. But some action is expected
by end of summer, and the probe could stretch beyond Election Day.
Barr told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that the coronavirus has slowed Durham's
ability to interview witnesses and use a grand jury if needed, though he did not officially
confirm there was grand jury activity in the case.
"It is a fact that there have not been grand juries in virtually all districts for a long
period of time," Barr said.
But most importantly, the attorney general laid out a likely timeline for when the first
actions might be taken in the case, while stressing the probe could carry beyond the
election.
"In terms of the future of Durham's investigation, he's pressing ahead as hard as he can,
and I expect that we will have some developments, hopefully before the end of the summer," Barr
said. "But as I've said, his investigation will continue. It's not going to stop because of the
election. What happens after the election may depend on who wins the election."
2. Barr
believes evidence used by the FBI to justify opening an investigation into the Trump campaign's
ties to Moscow was very thin.
The attorney general has made clear in multiple interviews that Australian diplomat
Alexander Downer's meeting with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos at a London bar in May
2016 was a weak justification for opening Crossfire Hurricane.
Downer claimed Papadopoulos made comments about Russians possessing dirt on Hillary Clinton,
and the FBI believed that was enough to predicate a counterintelligence investigation.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz agreed in his report that was enough, but found
substantial evidence the FBI cheated afterwards to keep the probe going in the absence of
evidence of wrongdoing.
Barr does not seem to accept the opening of the FBI probe was justified.
Papadopoulos' alleged "comment in a London wine bar" would be "a very slender reed to get
law enforcement and intelligence agencies involved in investigating the campaign of one's
political opponent," Barr declared Sunday.
Barr isn't the only high-profile figure to think that. Former FBI Assistant Director for
Intelligence Kevin Brock has said the FBI memo opening Crossfire Hurricane did not meet the
standards for opening a counter-intelligence investigation.
3. Investigators are focused
on what happened before Crossfire Hurricane officially started, including when Christopher
Steele first began compiling his dossier.
In multiple interviews, Barr has made clear Durham's team is examining what actions
government officials and private individuals may have taken in the winter and spring of 2016
before the FBI officially opened its probe of the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.
Perhaps the most tantalizing statement Barr has made on this came Sunday when he suggested
it was important that Steele began working on his dossier before July 2016, raising the
possibility that some unexplained events earlier that year may have been connected to that
early Steele work.
"I understand why it is important to try to determine whether there was any activity before
July, before the Papadopoulos wine bar conversation," Barr explained. "And so people are
looking at that. It's significant also that the dossier was initiated before July."
4.
Barr views the FBI's continuation of the Russia probe after the Steele dossier "collapsed" as
an illegitimate effort to remove the president.
Barr has repeatedly cited the fact that the FBI continued to rely on the Steele dossier
after the former MI6 agent's primary sub-source contradicted information in the dossier in
January 2017 and March 2017 -- and failed to tell the FISA court about the problems with the
repudiated evidence.
"The dossier pretty much collapsed at that point -- and yet they continued to use it as a
basis for pursuing this counterintelligence investigation," Barr noted this past weekend.
The attorney general suggested such behavior supports arguments that what was really going
on was an attempted coup to remove Trump from office. "It is the closest we have come to an
organized effort to push a president out of office," he said.
5. There are multiple
criminal investigations into leaks of classified information.
Barr made clear that Durham and others are examining multiple leaks for possible criminal
violations while cautioning proving leak cases can be challenging. One of those is focused on
who leaked Michael Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador.
"Leaking national defense information, unauthorized disclosure of that information is a
felony," Barr said. "We have a lot of leak investigations underway."
6. Barr is concerned
by the outgoing Obama administration's extensive unmasking of Americans' conversations ... but
don't expect Barack Obama or Joe Biden to get in trouble.
After the recent revelation that more than three dozen Obama administration officials sought
to unmask intercepted conversations of incoming Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn,
Barr declared, "It makes you wonder what they were doing."
"It's unusual for an outgoing administration, high-level officials, to be unmasking very
much in the days they're preparing to leave office," he added.
As a sign of that concern, Barr has named a U.S. attorney from Texas to assist Durham to
examine the unmaskings for any illegalities.
But Barr also tamped down any expectation that the former president or vice president will
be investigated, stating clearly they are not targets of the probe.
"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based
on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a criminal
investigation of either man," the attorney general said last month. "Our concern over potential
criminality is focused on others."
7. Durham is examining whether political pressures
were applied during the intelligence community's assessment of Russia's intentions in 2016
election meddling. That could be bad news for former CIA chief John Brennan.
In the Obama administration's final days, Brennan, outgoing DNI James Clapper and then-FBI
Director James Comey release the Intelligence Community Assessment, which declared Russia
meddled in the 2016 election with hacking and Facebook ads and that Moscow's intention was to
help Trump win.
The first conclusion is widely accepted, while the second is more controversial, especially
now that evidence has been declassified showing Russia was feeding derogatory disinformation
about Trump to Steele. Why, experts wonder, would Russia be doing that if Putin wanted Trump to
win?
Barr said Durham is investigating whether any political pressure was brought to bear to come
to that second conclusion. Sources have told Just the News there is some evidence that CIA
analysts and others had concerns about the strength of the evidence about Russia's
intentions.
play_arrow Itinerant , 1 hour ago
The first conclusion is widely accepted ... declared Russia meddled in the 2016 election
with hacking and Facebook ads
And it's high time for a dose of reality.
1. There's no evidence of a hack , as CrowdStrike stated in interviews that have been
released. There is a lot of evidence that it was a leak from inside the DNC premises, and
that Guccifer is an Intelligence Agency persona.
2. There's no evidence that Putin (or his administration) directed any purported Russian
meddling campaign.
3. There's no evidence that the Facebook ads were not click bait and were ever intentioned
to cause "Division". No coherent account can be given as to what "disinformation" they were
trying to spread, and why the Russian leadership would want to spread such "disinformation".
In fact, "it was so sophisticated that it remained hidden in plain view". That's because the
whole story is just psychological projection, based on assumptions of what the Russians would
want to do (no connection to anything they've ever said). Just look at some of the examples,
and you can reach no other conclusion than: Click bait.
CallOfTheWild , 3 hours ago
The Watch Pot NEVER BOILS.....WTF
Brennan
Clapper
Comey
McCabe
Strzok
Page
Ohr
Halper
Mifsud
Baker
Preistep
Yates
Rosenstein
Obama
Wray
Simpson
Clinton x2
Weissmann
Lynch
Jarrett
Rice
Fritsch
Power
McLaughlin
Ferrante
Boomer's revenge , 6 hours ago
Un acceptable. They commited a treasonous Coup d'état with impunity, insulting and
ridiculing all of us as they did it. "Could smell the Trump voters at Walmart".
ComradeChe , 7 hours ago
There was genius in the "Russian Collision" narrative; they kept it up, incessantly, even
as it was factually falling apart. There was no link. And still they kept at it. The result
was that everyone is SICK TO DEATH of this crap. No one cares. The Trump haters gonna hate
regardless-- and everyone else, whether they back the president or not, are just over it. It
blew up in Pelosi's face-- but no one cares.
Now, most of America is three mortgage payments behind and they don't give a damn about
anything but trying to keep their lives together. Obama, Rice, Clapper, Brennan et al pulled
off the most egregious political crime in the history of the republic. Even in his wildest
dreams Tricky **** Nixon couldn't get the IRS, the NSA and the CIA to do political hits for
him. But Obama-- nails it. The trifecta: the IRS 'rogue agents from Cincinnati' stifle the
Tea Party; the FBI/CIA jerk off the FISA Court with a bought and paid for shovel full of BS,
and then use the NSA to spy on a political candidate-- and better yet, conspire with foreign
intelligence services who utilize electronic surveillance within the US, so the CIA can keep
its skirts clean; and lastly, the circular firing squad of the National Security council
facilitates the 'unmasking' of dozens of Americans who are not terrorists, or spies but
political opponents.
No this didn't happen in Guatemala. This happened in the US.
And you know what? Obama and all his minions ARE going to get away with it. Barry got away
with presenting a birth certificate cobbled together on Adobe Illustrator; they didn't even
bother to make a PDF out of it. It was BAM in your face, 23 different fonts on 15 different
layers. So what? Hillary got away with keeping hundreds of Top Secret Codeword documents on a
home made web server. So what? Then she got away with accepting a sweet &130 million
payoff for the Clinton Foundation, right after she okayed the transfer of 25% of our enriched
Uranium to... wait for it... Putin. And then the IC blames Trump for being a stooge of
Putin.
It's too rich. If you are waiting for justice, forget it. I've seen this movie before.
Arch_Stanton , 8 hours ago
1. Timetable: Durham's investigation has been slowed by the pandemic. But some action is
expected by end of summer, and the probe could stretch beyond Election Day.
There will be no action, or should I say inaction, until after the election
2. Barr believes evidence used by the FBI to justify opening an investigation into the
Trump campaign's ties to Moscow was very thin.
3. Investigators are focused on what happened before Crossfire Hurricane officially
started, including when Christopher Steele first began compiling his dossier.
4. Barr views the FBI's continuation of the Russia probe after the Steele dossier
"collapsed" as an illegitimate effort to remove the president.
This is true and we all knew this over 3 years ago.
5. There are multiple criminal investigations into leaks of classified information.
Multiple leaks? No kidding.
6. Barr is concerned by the outgoing Obama administration's extensive unmasking of
Americans' conversations ... but don't expect Barack Obama or Joe Biden to get in
trouble.
We are all far more than "concerned". This was a coup. Obama initiated this whole coup and
Biden was in on the planning and we know it. Why do they skate?
7. Durham is examining whether political pressures were applied during the intelligence
community's assessment of Russia's intentions in 2016 election meddling. That could be bad
news for former CIA chief John Brennan.
Hoping it's more than news. Hoping for indictments.
This is a joke, and I'm not surprised. If Trump loses, this whole affair will be dropped
and consigned to the memory hole immediately.
Chocura750 , 7 hours ago
Thin justification is enough considering the importance of the claim.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 8 hours ago
Perhaps the most tantalizing statement Barr has made on this came Sunday when he
suggested it was important that Steele began working on his dossier before July 2016,
raising the possibility that some unexplained events earlier that year may have been
connected to that early Steele work.
It was reported in real time in 2016 that the Steele Dossier work was initiated at the
request of rival Republican candidates (likely Jeb Bush, possibly Ted Cruz) and they handed
it off to the Clinton Campaign to continue. The Bush family then supported Clinton in the
election. This was a uni-party effort to keep control in the 2 families.
Gerb00 , 8 hours ago
They all skate by, no one goes to jail, they all get multi million dollar gooka dn movie
deals, mr senile and mr o-*** get nobel peace prizes and shrines where the lincoln memorial
used to be..
David Wooten , 8 hours ago
"...the attorney general laid out a likely timeline for when the first actions might be
taken in the case, while stressing the probe could carry beyond the election."
Wrongdoings by past administrations go beyond Obiden to Bush 43 or earlier and also
include most members of the Senate and a fair number in the House. They stretch from Russia
to Ukraine to Libya to Syria to the UK to France to Israel to Assange, etc. They cover
members of both parties in the US and back to Tony Blair in Britain and some very powerful
people. They are all tied together in some way.
It will take far longer than the election to get the bottom of it and, given the
anti-Trump atmosphere that prevails, Durham is unlikely to produce any unsealed indictments
before the election lest they be tainted with politics, ie, helping Trump - as Ken Starr's
report was tainted as undermining Clinton's election.
Those involved are so powerful that the best that can be expected is to remove them from
positions of power, both in and out of government. Some these guys would rather die or bring
on a nuclear war than spend years to decades in prison.
Don't hold your breath.
bumboo , 8 hours ago
Hush Hush. Durham and Barr are part of the establishment. Barr and Robert Muller are
friends (attend same Bible class). One of them invited the other one to his daughter's
wedding (nothing wrong). Part of the Cabal.
Durham investigated the Guantanamo tapes burning by a CIA officer and wrote the per
someone's instructions. The author is assuming that his readers are fools and lazy. Sorry,
those days are gone, thanks to alternate Media and citizen's journalism or empowerment. We
dont have relay journalists in their rocking chair and writing superficial stuff. Did the
writer address Joseph Misfud, the Maltese guy.
There is sufficient information in the public sphere, including inculpatory evidence that
would be more than sufficient to produce indictments. The fact that Trump's AG drags his feet
on this within months of the election suggests Trump continues to waffle and go soft in the
knees when it matters most. In spite of talking a big game, Trump is a softie.
He might be an incredibly sophisticated media manipulator, and good for him, but I'm not
really sure he understands that this burgeoning insurrection, including the complex campaign
to unseat him during his presidency, constitutes an insurgency against the Constitutional
Republic.
This makes the agents within the Deep State traitors, the executing agents acting in the
streets insurrectionists and BLM potentially foreign agents. Trump and his team seem to think
this is all just disgruntled political opposition. IT's nothing of the sort.
The belated discovery of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's January 2017 notes raises
troubling new questions about whether President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were
coordinating efforts during their final days in office to investigate Trump national security
adviser Michael Flynn -- even as the FBI wanted to shut down the case.
Investigators will need to secure testimony from Strzok, fired two years ago from the FBI,
to be certain of the exact meaning and intent of his one paragraph of notes, which were made
public in court on Wednesday.
But they appear to illuminate an extraordinary high-level effort by outgoing Obama-era
officials during the first weekend of January to find a way to sustain a counterintelligence
investigation of Flynn in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
The Justice Department says the notes were written between Jan. 3-5, 2017, the very weekend
the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn's ties to Russia for five months recommended the case
be closed because there was "no derogatory" evidence that he committed a crime or posed a
counterintelligence threat. FBI supervisors overruled the agent's recommendation.
Strzok's notes appear to quote then-FBI Director James Comey as suggesting that Flynn's
intercepted calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak "appear legit," bolstering other
recently disclosed evidence showing the bureau saw nothing wrong with Flynn's behavior.
The notes also suggest Biden -- who once claimed he had no knowledge of the Flynn probe --
raised the issue of the Logan Act, an obscure, centuries-old law, as a possible avenue for
continuing to investigate Flynn.
And Strzok appears to quote Obama as suggesting the FBI assign "the right people" to pursue
the case.
You can read the notes here:
These conversations, if accurately portrayed in the Strzok notes, occurred during the same
three-day period in which FBI supervisors overruled their field agent's recommendation to shut
down the Flynn case and pivoted toward the strategy of luring Flynn into an FBI interview where
he might be caught lying.
Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer, laid out the potential ramifications of the notes in a court
filing on Wednesday, calling the new evidence "stunning and exculpatory."
"Mr. Obama himself directed that 'the right people' investigate General Flynn. This caused
former FBI Director Comey to acknowledge the obvious: General Flynn's phone calls with
Ambassador Kislyak 'appear legit,'" Powell argued in her new motion.
" According to Strzok's notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the
idea of the Logan Act. That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn," she
added.
Even if the rebuked judge appeals the decision or the full appeals court reconsiders the
case, Flynn is likely on a path to being a free and innocent man.
The real impact of the notes may be on the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of the
Russia investigators, where U.S. Attorneys John Durham and Jeff Jensen are determining whether
the FBI or others committed crimes in deceiving the courts or Congress about the evidence in
the now-discredited Russia collusion allegations.
A former senior FBI official told Just the News that Strzok's notes about the White House
meeting are a red flag that the Comey-led bureau may have been involving itself illegitimately
in a political dispute between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump
administration.
"It was a political meeting about a policy dispute, and the bureau had no business being
involved," Former Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said. "No other FBI director
would ever have attended such a meeting.
"Comey is quoted in the notes as saying the Kislyak call appeared legit. At that point he
should have gotten up and left the room," Brock added.
"The FBI had no business being represented in that meeting. It did not have a
counterintelligence interest any longer."
A second impact of the notes could be on the campaign trail. A few months ago, Biden claimed
he was unaware of the Flynn probe as he was leaving the VP's office.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn," he said.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Yrblo64caA
He then clarified his denial.
"I was aware that they asked for an investigation,"
Biden said. "But that's all I know about it, and I don't think anything else."
If Powell's interpretation of the notes is correct, Biden was knowledgeable enough to
suggest a possible pretext for continued investigation, the Logan Act. And he eventually
unmasked one of Flynn's intercepted phone calls a week later.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes told Just the News on Wednesday the
newly discovered notes affirm his long-held suspicion that the Obama White House was trying to
influence the FBI's Russia probe in untoward ways.
" Now we know both Obama and Biden were directly involved in planning the attack on Flynn
," Nunes said.
"The Obama administration exploited our intelligence community to spy on their political
opponents and engineer bogus investigations and prosecutions of them.
"This is the single biggest abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime," he added.
Yes, Nudelman and her ilk are rabidly anti-Russian. But what they did in Ukraine revealed a
very different thing: globohomo elites are mentally degenerate, they cannot foresee even
immediate consequences of their moves.
There was a joke in Russia that for the coup in 2014 in Kiev Obama deserves a medal "For
the liberation of Crimea" (there was a medal of this name in WWII). There was another joke,
that Ukraine without Crimea is like a purebred stallion without balls.
Neocons planned to make Ukraine a battering rum against Russia. They did not understand
that a log rotten through and through cannot serve as a battering ram. Now they are stuck
with that wreck ("you break it – you own it" rule) and don't know what to do with it.
Previous US administration and DNC big shots (Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, and Co) used it mostly
as a rout of stealing US taxpayers' money. Current administration does not seem to have even
this use for it. The US keeps proving the age-old wisdom that when you see your enemy
committing suicide, do not interfere. Putin appears to have a huge stock of popcorn.
A Senate committee approved subpoenas Thursday for more than 50 mostly Obama-era officials
in a dramatic escalation of the investigation into origins of the Trump-Russia collusion
probe.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is
wielding the subpoena power, said the move will finally put on the hot seat top officials,
including former FBI Director James B. Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
"Comey and McCabe and that whole crowd -- their day is coming," Mr. Graham said.
Others targeted for subpoenas are former National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper,
former CIA chief John O. Brennan, former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, former Deputy
Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and FBI officials Lisa
Page, Peter Strzok, James Baker and Bill Priestap.
The panel's politically charged inquiry has the potential to rewrite the Russia collusion
narrative that until recently dominated Washington and colored voters' views of the Justice
Department and the Obama administration, in which presumptive Democratic presidential nominee
Joseph R. Biden served as vice president.
Democrats said the investigation is a fishing expedition intended to smear President Trump's
political enemies as the campaign season heats up.
"Never has a chairman devoted the full weight of this committee's resources to pursue a
wholly partisan investigation after being prompted by a presidential campaign," said Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and a panel member.
The committee's probe also is a response to public pressure from Trump supporters who are
frustrated with the lack of accountability for top officials at the FBI and Justice Department
who publicly pushed the unsubstantiated collusion accusations.
Accusations of collusion with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election dogged Mr.
Trump since he took office and fueled Democrats' charges that he occupies the Oval Office
illegitimately.
Most of Mr. Trump's term was conducted under the cloud of special counsel Robert Mueller's
Russia investigation, which failed to dig up evidence of collusion or charge any Trump allies
on charges related to conspiring with Russia.
Mr. Trump calls the Russia probe a "hoax."
His supporters think it was a political hit job orchestrated by Democrats with the help of a
deep state.
In a party-line vote, Republicans on the panel granted Mr. Graham the authority to
subpoena individuals for documents and testimony about the origins of the Russia probe.
Mr. Graham has the power to subpoena "any current or former executive branch official or
employee involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation," the name of the FBI's
investigation into alleged ties to the Trump campaign and Russia.
He also has the authority to subpoena individuals involved in the dissemination of a
report by former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled a salacious but unverified
opposition-research dossier against Mr. Trump funded by the Democratic National Committee and
the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
Fusion GPS founder Glenn R. Simpson and Nellie Ohr are expected to receive subpoenas for
their roles in commissioning and distributing the dossier.
Republicans contend that mounting evidence suggests the Russia probe was not on the up and
up.
A report last year by the Justice Department inspector general found multiple errors and
omissions in the FBI's application for a court order to surveil former Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page.
The omissions, which included potentially exculpatory evidence, have raised questions
about whether Mr. Page was a political target by anti-Trump officials in the FBI before and
after the election.
Mr. Graham also wants to probe the case against former National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador.
The Justice Department moved this year to dismiss the case after spending roughly two years
prosecuting it. The department said the FBI did not have a sufficient basis to interview Flynn
because it sought to close the case after failing to uncover wrongdoing.
Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii Democrat, accused Mr. Graham of going over "ground that has
already been covered."
In a bid to upend the subpoena vote, Democrats sought to add a series of amendments to
compel testimony and documents from Mr. Trump's allies.
Among the individuals Democrats want to be subpoenaed are former Trump fixer Michael Cohen,
former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, attorney
Rudolph W. Giuliani and Flynn.
The amendments were defeated easily in a series of party-line votes.
"The fact that you are turning down every single relevant witness tells us and tells the
world this is an irrelevant investigation," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat.
Mr. Graham clapped back that Trump associates were heavily scrutinized in the Mueller
probe.
"I don't understand why you would want to do the Mueller investigation all over again after
we've spent 2½ years and $25 million doing it," said Mr. Graham. "I'm sorry it didn't
turn out the way people liked, but it is behind us. Now we are going to look at what happened
and the misconduct involved and hold people accountable."
Under committee rules, Mr. Graham cannot issue a subpoena unilaterally. The committee
chairman can issue a subpoena only with the consent of the ranking member or a committee
vote.
Democrats said the granting of subpoena power to one person violated the committee's
bipartisan spirit. They accused Mr. Graham of trying to grant himself "unilateral subpoena
authority."
"The resolution would give the chair sole authority to issue literally hundreds of subpoenas
without any agreement from the ranking member of any committee to vote on any specific
subpoena," said Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted last week to authorize
subpoenas from individuals associated with the Russia probe. It is not clear how the two
committees will work together with similar investigations and subpoenas.
People who post of Twitter are stupid by definition, but people who fire employees for
posting on Twitter are trying to replicate excesses of Stalinism (and, in way, McCarthysm) on a
farce level. As in Marx "history repeats: first as tragedy, the second as farce"
By classifying the (somewhat incorrect; Obama was elected not only because he was half black,
but also because he was half--CIA ;-) Twit below as the cry "fire" in crowded theater, we really
try to replay the atmosphere of Stalinist Russia on a new level.
Notable quotes:
"... Austin Symphony Trombonist Fired Over Racist Comments , The Violin Channel, June 1, 2020 ..."
Have you checked out the 1/2 black president swine flu H1N1, and EBOLA?
What has your 1/2 black president done for you??
The ONLY REASON he was elected was because he is 1/2 black.
People voted on racist principles, not on the real issues . The BLACKS are looting and
destroying their environment. They deserve what
they get. Playing the RACE CARD IS RACIST.
Symphony orchestra spokes-critter Anthony Corroa [ Email him
]announced the firing of Ms. Salas in the dreary schoolmarmish jargon of corporate wokeness:
This language is not reflective of who we are as an organization." And "there is no
place for hate within our organization."
I was a bit concerned when I heard Lindsey Graham in essence exonerate Rosenstein from any guilt. The investigation has only
just begun. Anyone else get the feeling deals are being done. I mean Graham was in on it from the start wasn't he?
So He's obviously
got some sort of immunity deal to be allowed any where near such a vitally important investigation.
So it will be interesting
to see how they navigate around that one. Another big day tomorrow...I feel that General Flynn may have some interesting input
a little bit further down the track. Patriots world wide. WWG1WGA.
We know Stzrok is all over it but I fear they are looking at taking him down and sparing the other traitors. Time will tell.
In my opinion everyone involved was equally complicit. WWG1WGA UK
Trey you didn't do ANYTHING about it!!!! ALL TALK!!!! You were just on these committees as a gate keeper to ask the questions
that would produce the pre-written responses. YOU ARE COMPROMISED! Everybody watching.... Trey Gowdy KNEW this was a hoax and
DID NOTHING!
They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it.
This is Nixon impeachment level staff. This are people that brought us Lybia, Syria: this senile Creepy Joe.
Saagar Enjeti blasts former President Obama after it was revealed in transcripts he was the
person who told then-deputy attorney general Sally Yates about Mike Flynn's intercepted phone
call with the Russian ambassador, Joe Biden responds to Flynn claims on Good Morning
America.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Flynn." "These documents clearly outline that you were in a meeting at a specific
time specifically about that." "OH! I'm sorry! I thought you asked if I was INVOLVED IN IT!"
The word is "entrapment" - Years ago, one of the officers in the investigations squad said to me, "How can you claim to be
better than them, if you break the law to catch 'em?" - Now I understand what he was saying.
The corrupt and despicable charade against Flynn conducted by at least the FBI and the so
called courts of justice in the United States has destroyed any possible semblance of the
idea that there is equal justice under the law or the laughable notion that anything remotely
like a fair trial is available to anyone for any alleged offence at all.
The message contained in this prosecution and those of other Trump supporters is quite
clear: any person who attempts to assist a political candidate not approved by so called
liberals will be punished. Flynn is an example of what will happen to Trump backers in
future.
I am amazed at the staying power of SST member Robert Willmann in even reporting this
disgusting slow motion attempted lynching.
To put that another way, I now understand why suspects in the USA occasionally risk their
lives by running from Police - they reason it is unlikely they will ever receive a fair
trial.
The net effect of all these so called legal procedures is to destroy what little is left
of America's international legal reputation that reached its highest point at the Nuremberg
trials. That will not be to our advantage when, instead of shredding international treaties,
we one day seek to negotiate the same.
The FBI is the secret police working on behalf of the interests of the oligarchs. The
federal courts role is to implement and enforce the interests of the oligarchs. The Supreme
Court's role is to come up with legal mumbo jumbo to justify this tyranny of the
minority.
All the judges in this case (Sullivan, Wilkins, Rao) as merely proxy warriors, tools of
the oligarchs. It's not coincidental they are also 'people of color'. This has been the m.o.
of the oligarchs for over a hundred years. It was the Spingarn brothers (two lawyers from a
rich Jewish family) who started the NAACP with their front man, the mixed race W.E.B. Du
Bois. The first mission of the NAACP, and the task assigned to Du Bois, to destroy Booker T.
Washington who had a large following in the black community and was advocating for more
harmonious race relations. The oligarchs (Spingarns, et al.) running the NAACP needed to
silence Washington because they wanted to create more racial division to gain power and
subvert American culture. You can read more about this fascinating history in Catholic
historian E. Michael Jones' "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" (Fidelity, 2008), pp. 679-715;
745-793; 831-843.
Here's a good interview where Jones touches on a lot of this in an interview with Dr. Kirk
Meighoo (Indo Caribbean Diaspora News): https://youtu.be/gtdWbTkBQxk
James Baker, who was general counsel for the bureau during the period surrounding the 2016
election, was welcomed by the social media giant's top lawyer Monday evening.
"Thrilled to welcome @thejimbaker to @Twitter as Deputy General Counsel. Jim is committed to
our core principles of an open internet and freedom of expression, and brings experience
navigating complex, global issues with a principled approach," said Twitter general counsel
Sean Edgett.
"Thanks @edgett!! I'm very excited to join such a great team @Twitter doing such important
work. Glad to be on board," Baker tweeted back.
"... "The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out a family's lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country undergoing collapse. ..."
"... This is why it is not shown in national media . Some local media show an indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction is only a local occurrence I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts." ..."
"... Why has the media failed to show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last 5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they've changed their stripes and become an energized proponent of social justice? ..."
"... The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites. ..."
"... That hasn't changed, in fact, it's gotten even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas, and spreading anarchy across the count ..."
"... This isn't about racial justice or police brutality, it's about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. ..."
"... What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower ..."
"... The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal ..."
"... The protests are merely a fig leaf for a "color revolution" that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign governments in the last 70 years ..."
"... "Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in." ..."
"... "The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates these plans and gives "execute orders?" ..."
"... Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present meme of "Defund the Police" is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police force. ..."
"... Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa's "logistical capabilities". The United States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the same time. ..."
"... it points to extensive coordination with groups across the country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem. ..."
"... This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy ..."
"... "The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal, and murder . ..."
"... The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself ..."
"... that explains why anti-fa attack Yellow Vests in Germany. The Yellow Vests are the true people's movement and as shown in the video below it is not about the left and the right for the yellow vest but common people fed up with the system ..."
"... Watch every frame of this. It shows the government-media complex and their little thugs, ANTIFA, in perfect collusion to interfere with the regular Germans trying to stop the Satanic communist-Globo homo project. ..."
"... My bro is one of the few people flying, for work. He says the only people on the airlines are antifa thugs moving all around the country. ..."
"... Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate Trump's support base? ..."
"... Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question. In the Sunday edition of the New York Times– the official propaganda organ of US elites– an article is entirely devoted to creating "plausible deniability" that Antifa is behind the violence in the protests that have swept the country. ..."
"Revolutions are often seen as spontaneous. It looks like people just went into the
street. But it's the result of months or years of preparation. It is very boring until you
reach a certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If it is
carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks."
Foreign Policy
Journal
Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the
killing of George Floyd?
It's all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative that
applauds the "mainly peaceful protests" while ignoring the vast destruction to cities across
the country. What's that all about? Do the instigators of these demonstrations want to see our
cities reduced to urban wastelands where street gangs and Antifa thugs impose their own harsh
justice? That's where this is headed, isn't it?
Of course there are millions of protesters who honestly believe they're fighting racial
injustice and police brutality. And more power to them. But that certainly doesn't mean there
aren't hidden agendas driving these outbursts. Quite the contrary. It seems to me that the
protest movement is actually the perfect vehicle for affecting dramatic social changes that
only serve the interests of elites. For example, who benefits from defunding the police? Not
African Americans, that's for sure. Black neighborhoods need more security not less. And yet,
the New York Times lead editorial on Saturday proudly announces, " Yes, We Mean Literally
Abolish the Police–Because reform won't happen." Check it out:
"We can't reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact
between the public and the police .There is not a single era in United States history in
which the police were not a force of violence against black people. Policing in the South
emerged from the slave patrols in the 1700 and 1800s that caught and returned runaway slaves.
In the North, the first municipal police departments in the mid-1800s helped quash labor
strikes and riots against the rich. Everywhere, they have suppressed marginalized populations
to protect the status quo.
So when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man's neck until he dies,
that's the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black
person, he is doing what he sees as his job " (" Yes, We
Mean Literally Abolish the Police–Because reform won't happen" , New York
Times)
So, according to the Times, the problem isn't single parent families, or underfunded
education or limited job opportunities or fractured neighborhoods, it's the cops who have
nothing to do with any of these problems. Are we supposed to take this seriously, because the
editors of the Times certainly do. They'd like us to believe that there is groundswell support
for this loony idea, but there isn't. In a recent poll, more than 60% of those surveyed, oppose
the idea of defunding the police. So why would such an unpopular, wacko idea wind up as the
headline op-ed in the Saturday edition? Well, because the Times is doing what it always does,
advancing the political agenda of the elites who hold the purse-strings and dictate which ideas
are promoted and which end up on the cutting room floor. That's how the system works. Check out
this excerpt from an article by Paul Craig Roberts:
"The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out
a family's lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the
looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their
persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and
by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country
undergoing collapse.
This is why it is not shown in national media . Some local media show an
indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and
presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction
is only a local occurrence I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the
extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts." (" The Real Racists", Paul Craig Roberts,
Unz Review)
Roberts makes a good point, and one that's worth mulling over. Why has the media failed to
show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the
effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from
the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the
demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that
supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last
5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they've changed their stripes and become an
energized proponent of social justice?
Nonsense. The media's role in concealing the damage should only convince skeptics that the
protests are just one part of a much larger operation. What we're seeing play out in over 400
cities across the US, has more to do with toppling Trump and sowing racial division than it
does with the killing of George Floyd. The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements
in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate
probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the
same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites.
That hasn't changed, in fact, it's gotten
even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management
strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove
Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined
with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas,
and spreading anarchy across the country.
This isn't about racial justice or police brutality,
it's about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. Take a look at this
article at The Herland Report:
"What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by
the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower and
end the national sovereignty principles that president Trump stands for in America .
The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia
Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal and nothing else has worked. The aim is to end
democracy in the United States, control Congress and politics and assemble the power into the
hands of the very few
That sounds about right to me. The protests are merely a fig leaf for a "color revolution"
that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign
governments in the last 70 years. Have the chickens have come home to roost? It certainly looks
like it. Here's more from the same article:
"Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support
those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund
them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political
instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in."
So, yes, the grievances are real, but that doesn't mean that someone else is not steering
the action. And just as the media is shaping the narrative for its own purposes, so too, there
are agents within the movement that are inciting the violence. All of this suggests the
existence of some form of command-control that provides logistical support and assists in
communications. Check out this excerpt from a post at Colonel Pat Lang's website Sic Semper
Tyrannis:
"The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around
the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen
water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a
well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates
these plans and gives "execute orders?"
Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are
fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present
meme of "Defund the Police" is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously
across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis
was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse
abolishing the police force.
Gutting the civil police forces has long been a major goal of
the far left, but now, they have the ability to create mass hysteria over it when they have
an excuse ."
("My take on the present situation", Sic Semper Tyrannis)
Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa's "logistical capabilities". The United
States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the
same time. It's beyond suspicious, it points to extensive coordination with groups across the
country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a
sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose
task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem.
None of this has anything to do with racial justice or police brutality. America is being
destabilized and sacked for other purposes altogether. This a destabilization campaign similar
to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet
government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans
into homelessness and destitution, and leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country
easily controlled by Federal shock troops and wealthy globalist mandarins. Here's a short
excerpt from an article by Kurt Nimmo at his excellent blog "Another Day in the Empire":
"The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and
political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more
critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack
natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling
elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal,
and murder .
It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main
problem -- boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all -- black,
white, yellow, brown -- as expliotable and dispensable serfs. " (" 2 Million Arab Lives
Don't Matter ", Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire)
The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of
this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having succeeded in using the Lockdown to
push the economy into severe recession, the globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that
will weaken the opposition and prepare the country for a new authoritarian order.
the media narrative that applauds the "mainly peaceful protests" while ignoring the vast
destruction to Hong Kong where there was neither police violence nor racial discrimination.
Look like the same organizing principles were used in both places.
Of course that explains why anti-fa attack Yellow Vests in Germany.
The Yellow Vests are the true people's movement and as shown in the video below it is not
about the left and the right for the yellow vest but common people fed up with the system, a
true grass roots movement of the people.
And Anti-fa, the Whores of the Satanic elites attack them. Why would anti-fascists attack the
common man?
Watch every frame of this. It shows the government-media complex and their little thugs,
ANTIFA, in perfect collusion to interfere with the regular Germans trying to stop the Satanic
communist-Globo homo project.
Few arguments in contra of the article. Can any-one conceive of there being a competition between BLM rioting organizing and
covertly supporting, and Corona-19, where the elites were very cohesive internationally in the face.
The target, Trump, the man with no policies, the implement nothing, is it such a worthy target to a fraction of the power
elites? That would speak for shallowness on their behalf. Creating back-ground noise to fade out the re-organizing of society,
regardless of actors as Trump could be an acceptable explanation. "Keep the surplus population busy. Keep the attention on the
streets".
There is a trade-off. The international elites see the exposure of the US internal policies, the expenditure of energy, do
they regard the situation as something to copy-paste, an interesting experiment, or as weakness to be taken advantage of?
Probably the first, then BLM covert support chains perfectly with Corona-19, and scales things up.
"Black neighborhoods need more security not less."
Police are not security, they're repression. Anybody of any color who thinks they're safer
with heavily armed bureaucrats blundering around is a moron.
And since when does reductions in guard labor equal austerity? There are several economic
rights that should not be derogated, but assholes with guns impounding cars is not one of
them. If the residents of a community are asking for more cops, that's one thing. They are
not. Law enforcement budgets are stuffed up the ass of residents and often municipalities.
Look into e.g. the MA "strong chief" enabling acts. States have massive unfunded pension
liabilities in large part because of police featherbedding. That's what's being pushed by the
"deep state" (you mean CIA.) The evident CIA use of provocateurs is aimed at justifying
further increases in repressive capacity.
OK bye! Don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out! Stupid and delusional though pigs are, it's dimly dawning on them that America considers
them crooked loudmouthed violent assholes. Here's a typical one exercising what Gore Vidal
called the core competence of police, whining.
Boo hoo hoo, asshole, go home and beat your wife or eat a gun or whatever it is you dream
of doing in retirement, cause the states can't afford your crooked unions' pensions in this
induced depression. Cut these white man's welfare jobs.
Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question.
In the Sunday edition of the New York Times– the official propaganda organ of US
elites– an article is entirely devoted to creating "plausible deniability" that Antifa
is behind the violence in the protests that have swept the country.
Why is the Times so concerned that its readers might have a different opinion on this
matter? Why do they want to convince people that the protests-riots are merely spontaneous
outbursts of anti-racist sentiment? Could it be because the Times job is to create a version
of events that suits the interests of the elites it serves? Here's a few excerpts from
today's piece titled "Federal Arrests Show No Sign That Antifa Plotted Protests":
While anarchists and anti-fascists openly acknowledged being part of the immense
crowds, they call the scale, intensity and durability of the protests far beyond anything
they might dream of organizing. Some tactics used at the protests, like the wearing of
all black and the shattering of store windows, are reminiscent of those used by anarchist
groups, say those who study such movements. (plausible deniability)
Anarchists and others accuse officials of trying to assign blame to extremists rather
than accept the idea that millions of Americans from a variety of political backgrounds have
been on the streets demanding change. Numerous experts also called the participation of
extremist organizations overstated. (plausible deniability)
"A significant number of people in positions of authority are pushing a false narrative
about antifa being behind a lot of this activity," said J.M. Berger, the author of the
book "Extremism" and an authority on militant movements. "These are just unbelievably large
protests at a time of great turmoil in this country, and there is surprisingly little
violence given the size of this movement.".. (plausible deniability)
In New York, the police briefed reporters on May 31, claiming that radical anarchists
from outside the state had plotted ahead of protests by setting up encrypted communications
systems, arranging for street medics and collecting bail funds.
Within five days, however, Dermot F. Shea, the city's police commissioner, acknowledged
that most of the hundreds of people arrested at the protests in New York were actually New
Yorkers who took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes and were not motivated by political
ideology . John Miller, the police official who had briefed reporters, told CNN that most
looting in New York had been committed by "regular criminal groups." (plausible
deniability)
Kit O'Connell, a longtime radical leftist activist and community organizer in Austin, said
that shortly after Mr. Trump's election, the group took part in anti-fascist protests in the
city against a local white supremacist group and scuffled separately with Act for America, an
anti-Muslim organization.
Why is the Times acting like Antifa's attorney? Why are the trying to minimize the role of
professional agitators? Why is the Times so determined to shape the public's thinking on this
matter?
Doesn't this suggest that Antifa and other groups operating within the protest movement
are actually linked to agencies in the deep state that are conducting another operation
against the American people?
@anonymous anonymous, I have been encouraging cops to quit for a long time. They are
protecting the wrong people, being used to protect people in the ruling class that hate and
despise cops just a little less than they hate and despise the rest of us civilians.
To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested, charged, prosecuted,
defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks. No white person should have
anything to do with it. Any white person policing negros in America is making a huge mistake,
and should immediately quit.
The pensions are not going to be paid, and the crazy, Soros paid for black people are
going to make it impossible for a white cop pretty soon anyway. Might as well walk before
they make you run.
Don't worry about BLM, which is corporate phoney bullshit protest, easter parades and
internet posturing. The blacks in the street don't fall for that shit. Look what happens when
coopted oreos try to herd everybody back to tame marching:
The provocateurs are not influencing them. The sellout house negroes are not influencing
them. They know what they want. The regime is shitting its pants. If they scapegoat Trump and
purge him, Biden will inherit the same problem only worse.
Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate
Trump's support base?
That's what I am wondering too. It makes more sense to me that the elites driving these
BLM riots are those who support Trump. Terrify people and threaten the existence of police is
a good way to get elderly white voters out of their covid lockdowns on election day.
Doesn't this suggest that Antifa and other groups operating within the protest movement
are actually linked to agencies in the deep state that are conducting another operation
against the American people?
Do we really want to suggest the CIA is committing treason against the American people?
Isn't it more likely that the Times is agitating against the CIA for other reasons? Reasons
Carlos Slim could explain?
For those who haven't read Pepe Escobar's latsest on BLM, here's a couple clips:
Black Lives Matter, founded in 2013 by a trio of middle class, queer black women very
vocal against "hetero-patriarchy", is a product of what University of British Columbia's
Peter Dauvergne defines as "corporatization of activism".
Over the years, Black Lives Matter evolved as a marketing brand, like Nike (which
fully supports it). The widespread George Floyd protests elevated it to the status of a new
religion. Yet Black Lives Matter carries arguably zero, true revolutionary appeal. This is
not James Brown's "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud". And it does not get even close to
Black Power and the Black Panthers' "Power to the People".
Black Lives Matter profited in 2016 from a humongous $100 million grant from the Ford
Foundation and other philanthropic capitalism stalwarts such as JPMorgan Chase and the
Kellogg Foundation.
The Ford Foundation is very close to the U.S. Deep State. The board of directors is
crammed with corporate CEOs and Wall Street honchos. In a nutshell; Black Lives Matter, the
organization, today is fully sanitized; largely integrated into the Democratic Party machine;
adored by mainstream media; and certainly does not represent a threat to the 0.001%.
an evident ham-handed attempt to make this all about race. The real threat to this police
state is racial and international solidarity against state predation – the stuff that
got Fred Hampton killed,
"when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the
black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too We say you don't fight racism
with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with
no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism."
or Angela Davis and the Che-Lumumba club. BAP is right back on this and the resonating
international demonstrations show that that's the right track. The whole world sees what this
is about, except for a few fucked-over US whites.
botazefa, of course the CIA is committing treason against the American people. Where were you
when they whacked JFK, then RFK? Where were you when they blew up OKC? Where were you when
they released anthrax on the Senate, infiltrated and protected 9/11 terrorists, assigned more
terrorists to MITRE to blind NORAD, blew up the WTC for the second time, and exfiltrated the
Saudi logisticians?
Anybody unaware that CIA has been pure treason from inception is (1) retarded XOR (2) a
CIA traitor.
Sorry. The assholes on this asshole site will not let you say that what is important is how
the super-billionaires control us. They are going to insist that it's niggerniggernigger all
the way home and that's all there is to it. You would think they were paid. Or really, really
stupid.
When Gina, she-wolf of Udon Thani, got busted for trying to overthrow the United States
government with Russiagate, she hung onto her job by rigging the succession with all the
Brennan traitors who ran the Russiagate coup.
So we should expect that Gina will now stage a couple massacres like Kent State and
Jackson State, because that's how CIA ratfucked Nixon when he didn't knuckle under.
Gina's extra motivated to stay on top because she's criminally culpable for systematic and
widespread torture:
@Mike Whitney Excellent article and I believe excellent analysis of the situation.
Where we may differ is with Trump's complicity in Deep State efforts. I believe Trump is a
minion of the Deep State. His actions and inactions can not be explained any other way.
Let's assume for a minute, that Pepe Escobar is correct when he says this:
"Black Lives Matter profited in 2016 from a humongous $100 million grant from the Ford
Foundation and other philanthropic capitalism stalwarts such as JPMorgan Chase and the
Kellogg Foundation .
The Ford Foundation is very close to the U.S. Deep State. The board of directors is
crammed with corporate CEOs and Wall Street honchos. In a nutshell; Black Lives Matter,
the organization, today is fully sanitized; largely integrated into the Democratic Party
machine; adored by mainstream media; and certainly does not represent a threat to the
0.001%.
If this is true–and I believe it is– then Black Lives Matter is no different
than USAID or any of the other NGOs that are used to incite revolution around the world. If
this is true, then there is likely a CIA link to these protests, the main purpose of which is
to remove Trump from office.
So Black Lives Matter= activist NGO linked to US Intel agencies= Regime Change
Operation
But there is something else going on here too, (that many readers might have noticed) that
is, the way social media has been manipulated to put millions of young people on the street
in order to promote the agenda of elites.
How did they manage that?
How did they get millions of young people to come out day after day (14 days so far) in
over 400 cities to protest an issue about which they know very little aside from the media's
irritating reiteration of "systemic racism", (a claim that is not supported by the data.)
IMO, we are seeing the first successful social media saturation campaign launched probably
by the Pentagon's Office Strategic Communications or a similar outfit within the CIA. Having
already taken control over the entire mainstream media complex, the intel agencies and their
friends at the Pentagon are now wrapping their tentacles around internet communications in
order to achieve their goal of complete tyrannical social control.
As always, the target of these massive covert operations is the American people who had
better pull their heads out of the sand pronto and come up with a plan for countering this
madness.
@anonymous The elephant in the room, that seems to be ignored by all is the simple fact
that Hispanics are working class heroes. And they outnumber the blacks, and hate their guts
for the most part. Not the scrawny punks withe Che t-shirts, but the actual working types
that are less than thrilled to deal with the weak. Notice how no Hispanic barrios have EVER
been f ** ked with, no matter when the race riot? There is an open fatwa from La Eme
regarding blacks that has never been rescinded. Has a lot to do with the kneegro exodus from
the LA area, which correlates with the lack of looting in the formerly black areas. Which the
MSM prefers to ignore. The happy idiots are mugging for the cameras on a daily basis in
Hollywood, but the Hispanic run Sheriff's office has no problem with popping gas and
defending businesses. Also note that the MSM only reports on areas when a local government
craters to the mob. LA County was under curfew for 7 days due to a mob of looters that
numbered perhaps 2000. If that Jew mayor (with the Italian surname) had not allowed the
looting, then we would have seen the kind of 36 hour turnaround like we had with Rodney King.
The ethnic group that ignores the MSM and stands up for its own people will win in the end.
Right now we are looking more toward the kind of Celtic/Meso-American alliance that is well
known in the penal system. These groups can exist side by side, with each ignoring the other.
Blacks, on the other paw seem to be unable to keep to themselves, at least on the ghetto
level, and will always be an issue for civilization. It's time we stop calling for a generic
and all-inclusive White establishment. The race traitors and weaklings forfeit that right.
When Celts, Italians, Germans, etc. were proud and independent, there was strength. It's time
to return to that ideal. Only the negroid actually lumps all whites together, which the Jews
use as a divisive tool. Strength should be idolized, rather than weakness exploited.
I'm saying that the NYT is not necessarily mouthpiece *only* for the Deep State. As for
your JFK assassination – Senate Anthrax – 9/11 etc, those are considered
conspiracy theories and I've never been persuaded otherwise. I've read up on the theories and
they are not strong.
I don't know what a retarded XOR is except as it relates to logic diagrams and I don't
work for the CIA.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
It's called Jewish lawfare for Antifa, Jewish control of media, and Jewish cult of Magic
Negro.
Even though Jews led the Gentric Cleansing campaigns against blacks by using mass
immigration, globo-homo celebration, and white middle class return to cities, the Jews are
now pretending be with the blacks and throwing the immigrants, white middle class, and homos
to the black mobs.
simple fact that Hispanics are working class heroes
Some are. Most aren't. And the 'not'% grows with selective Americanization (not
assimilation). Still, I'll take them over the blacks, even with their generally inferior (to
White) culture.
Whites are better with separation from them along with blacks. Whatever the prime driver,
both groups have poisoned America, likely beyond repair. Conquistador gonnna
conquistador.
M. Whitney in comment 21 clarifies his view of BLM as the impetus for this rebellion. That
does not square with the reports of people on the street.
BLM is exactly analogous to BDS: a controlled opposition of feckless halfassed gestures
designed to distract from the real movement. You hear BLM apparatchiks whining about getting
their movement hijacked because people in the streets show solidarity with oppressed groups
worldwide – and youe hear BLM getting booed by the people they're trying to corral.
BLM's mission is putting words in the protestors' mouths. You hear Democrat BLM spokesmodels
trying to distort calls for police abolition and no more impunity. And real protestors call
bullshit.
BLM works on dumb white guys: hating on BLM makes them feel very edgy and defiant. Black
Lives Matter! Blue Lives Matter! Black! Blue! Black! Blue! Catnip for dumbshits, courtesy of
CIA. Keeps them away from the really subversive stuff, which makes perfect sense for whites
too.
@ICD Look into whether the training of cops has been outsourced and privatized. Or simply
shortened to save money.
And ask why the police are even armed when in Communist China they are not, and
traditionally in the non-American West they were not, now are in imitation of America.
Ann Nonny Mouse, truer words were never spoken. Chinese cops have these cute little
nightsticks, and sometimes they will bop a guy and the guy just stands there and says Ow and
the cops continue to reason with him, no restraint, incapacitation, any of that shit. British
cops used to be that way, they used to reason with you. Now they're all American style
Assholes, if not Israeli concentration camp guards. Just nuke FOP HQ in Memphis.
Koch sees privatization as a future profit center and a chance to control the cops
himself. They're not trainable, they're too fucking stupid. We all did fine without pigs up
through most of the 19th century. Hue and cry works fine. Fire all the cops and replace them
with unarmed women social workers. That's all they are, prodigiously incompetent social
workers.
Too, those many businesses with all that unsold inventory sitting around gathering dust due
to Covid isolation will benefit from insurance payments covering their losses due to looting.
The cherry on top.
Are you just clueless or what? Did you notice the names of the Antifa leaders that have
been exposed? They are Amish Right? They are Jews and they will always be Jews! Soros and
other Jews have been running this game for a long time. Where have you been? SDS in Chicago
no Jews there right!
The CIA and the FBI overwhelmed with Jews can you count? All the professors who have been
destroying whites with their fake studies blaming everything wrong in the world on Whites and
Western Civilization. The entire Media owned by who?
Either you were dropped out of a spaceship a few days ago or you are a total idiot and
can't see the forest before trees.
Try this: The Percentage of all Ivy League Presidents, top adminstrators, deans etc take a
guess then go count them and see which group they belong to.
Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the
killing of George Floyd?
It's all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative
.
* * *
This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA's color revolutions designed to
topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on
the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans into homelessness and destitution, and
leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country easily controlled by Federal shock
troops and wealthy globalist mandarins.
One must wonder: How could the CIA and the U.S. Democrat establishment foment and
coordinate all of the Black Lives Matter protests occurring in Canada, several nations of
South and Central America, the U.K., Ireland, throughout the European Union, and in
Switzerland, the Middle East (Turkey, Iran ), and in Asia (Korea, Japan .) and New Zealand,
Australia, and Africa?
Mr. Whitney: Neither magic nor bigotry-induced hallucinations can forge a tenable
conspiracy theory.
I think the primary reason the mainstream media doesn't want the general public, especially
those living outside the major cities, to understand the extent of the destruction and
violence that spread in a highly-coordinated fashion across America, is that this would be
cause for alarm among a majority of Americans who would demand more Law & Order, which
would redound to Trump's benefit.
Notice Trump is countering by tweeting "LAW & ORDER!"
Here is Trump tweeting "Does anyone notice how little the Radical Left takeover of Seattle
is being discussed in the Fake News Media[?] That is very much on purpose "
Does anyone notice how little the Radical Left takeover of Seattle is being discussed in
the Fake News Media. That is very much on purpose because they know how badly this weakness
& ineptitude play politically. The Mayor & Governor should be ashamed of
themselves. Easily fixed!
The outcome of the election in November could hinge on the urgency the public places on
the issue of Law & Order. Hence the media's all out effort to minimize the extent of the
Anarchy and Violence and the financial sponsorship, planning, and coordination behind it.
Please see my comment of June 15, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT (comment # 34). I must apologize for
that comment's insufficiency (owed to my posting that comment before I happened upon your
comment to which this comment replies). Had I encountered your comment earlier, my
June 15, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT comment (comment # 34) would have observed that you are
triumphantly illogical as you are a world class crackpot.
@ICD You said it. Police Departments country-wide are stuffed up the wazoo with more cash
than they can spend. But what do they cry? Poor us. Poor us. We ain't got no money.
This is what they, and by they, I mean all our owners and their overseers, always do. They
cry poverty when they are rolling in loot.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
Yes, and the left(unwittingly) will help them with their cause, and the right will
cowardly hide right behind the deep state as protection from the violent left.
@Priss Factor You are extremely unlikely to receive any of those things from a "Negro".
90% of Americans are unlikely to even see more than ten black people in their entire lives.
I wish you psychotic fucking female idiots on this website who are constantly blathering
about black people could realize how annoying you are to the 90% of white people who are not
living in or next to black ghettos. Please STFU and allow discourse to trend in more
pertinent directions, and move away from black people if you're so paranoid about them.
@Mike Whitney The (((media))) have an uphill battle in convincing us to deny the evidence
of our eyes -- black-hooded white punks throwing bricks through storefronts then inviting
joggers to loot.
That is why so many platforms, even "free speech" GAB, are wildly censoring
counter-narratives.
@Brian Reilly Stephen Molyneux said that police forces were originally geared to operate
under white Christian societies where there was a high level of trust and people were
law-abiding. I remember when I was a kid, we didn't even lock our doors. Our bikes were left
out on the front lawn, sometimes for days, weeks, and nobody took them. Nobody locked their
car doors. People just didn't steal other people's stuff. When a cop tried to pull you over,
you didn't hit the gas pedal and take off. You didn't run from the cops; you were polite to
them and they were polite to you.
Tucker Carlson said that Blacks are now asking for their own hospitals (I forget what city
this was) and their own doctors and nurses. Blacks schools, Black police forces.
Tribes don't mix. Their culture is different than our culture. Why should they change for
us, and why should we change for them?
It is a marriage that does not work. Either send them back to Africa (best solution) or
give them Mississippi and put up a big wall. Then let them pay for their own upkeep –
all of it. Good luck with that.
Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass
meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police
force.
Mayor Jacob Frey got elected at his extremely young age by flanking on the Left with anti
police rhetoric, He is the the originator of this crisis; as soon as the video of Floyd's
death was public Frey publicly and literally called the four cops murderers and said
he was powerless to have them arrested. That was a false accusation of police impunity,
because the supposedly powerless Frey was able to order the police to vacate their own
station thus letting the demonstrators take over and burn it. Yet to draw back a bit the Deep
State if worried about other states.
That event Frey largely created was the key moment of this whole thing. Trump could have
nipped it in the bud by had sending in troops immediately the Minneapolis 3rd Precinct was
burnt down. Crushing the riots in that city and preventing the example infecting the
demonstrations in other cities. and turning them into cover for riots. Trump did not want to
be seen as Draconian although it would not have been at all violent, because no one is going
to challenge the army's awesome presence once it arrived on the streets,as worked in the
Rodney King riots.
The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having
succeeded in using the Lockdown to push the economy into severe recession, the globalists
are now inciting a fratricidal war that will weaken the opposition and prepare the country
for a new authoritarian order.
George Floyd had foam visible at the corners of his mouth when the police arrived. Autopsy
tests revealed Fentanyl and COVID-19: both from Wuhan. I Can't Breath is America gearing up
to confront and settle accounts with Xi's totalitarian state.
Current events might seem to be a setback for the US, but provide the opportunity for a
re-set with the black community, with a potential outcome of resolving race tensions that
have been a cause of dissension and internal weakness, just as during the Cold War racial
integration was thought essential by anti communists like Nixon. America is gearing up to
settle accounts with China, which is a Deep State new Cold War. While it is a possibility
that whites could lose control of their society, and see it fall into the hands of an
explicitly anti -acist elite/ minorities alliance, the Deep State is not the same as the
hyper capitalist elite whose growing wealth depends on China.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
@Mike Whitney The Duran did an excellent video titled "Social Media 'Unchecked Power'"
where they talk about Trump and Barr going after the tech companies and their virtual
monopolies with an executive order.
At 33:45 they state that Microsoft (Bill Gates) invested $1 billion and the CIA invested
$16 million into Facebook when it was still operating as a university network. The CIA were
one of the first investors in Facebook.
Why the hell was the CIA investing $16 million to get Facebook off the ground? Hmmm. Could
it be because Facebook would be instrumental in controlling the narrative?
The young people, who have no experience and no real knowledge of history, are being taken
in by these social media companies who are playing on their emotions. Any dissenting opinions
are blocked or banned. Very dangerous.
@Loup-Bouc Well, the "deep state" is just an euphemism for the jewish power structure,
and all those places you named are run be jews. That jews cooperate in extended conspiracies
without regard of borders should be common knowledge for every observer of history and
current politics. I see nothing far-fetched. Honestly, my mind would boggle if I should
explain, how the Antifa gets away with those things it always gets away with, if it wasn't
controlled by the "deep state". And I couldn't explain the international cooperation either.
As Pepe' Escobar said – Americans looting is a natural thing – just look at how
the US Military has stolen the gaz and oil from Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. and is trying like
hell for the Venezuelan oil fields. Not to mention where all their gold, silver and billions
of dollars have gone. The list of the USG looting criminal record is unprecedented . It's a
Family Tradition. Enjoyed the article !
@MrFoSquare The Capitol Hill area of Seattle that has been taken over as an "autonomous
zone" by the protesters is really rather laughable.
One of the first things they did was put up what they called "light fencing". Oh, so when
THEY put up walls, that's perfectly fine. When Trump tries to do it, that's evil and racist.
Borders are A-okay when they're doing it.
They've colonized an area for themselves. I thought the Progressive Left was against
colonialism, taking someone else's property. Isn't that what they've done? They've taken over
whole neighborhoods.
And they've got armed patrol guards checking people as they enter. If you're not in
agreement with their ideology, you're not allowed to enter. So apparently it's okay to have
border controls when they're running the world.
They're doing everything they profess to be against. Hilarious.
@Brian Reilly "anonymous, I have been encouraging cops to quit for a long time."
Dude, why? I don't want to get jacked by some thug or some immigrant policeman from
Honduras. And I can't defend myself because it would be a hate crime.
There are underlying motives, or "hidden agendas", beneath the authentic struggle for
justice. The greatest motive is for power: either to retain it or gain it. The need or desire
for power can be identified in every conflict in history. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Realist So you think that everything they've done to Trump has been one big show and
he's been in on it? The pussy tape, Stormy Daniels, spying on his campaign, the leaking, the
Steele Dossier, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, his impeachment, lying to the FISA Courts by the
FBI, CIA's involvement, Mueller Report, DNC server, Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac,
fake news media, sanctuary cities, courts disobeying his executive orders, Covid-19, protests
– all of it has been a ruse to fool us into thinking that Trump is a legitimate
opposition?
What, it's better to have the citizens split politically 50/50? That way there's never a
majority who start throwing their weight around and making trouble for the elite looters?
Keep the people fighting among each other and divided?
Trump has gone through all of this, but he's just faking it? Are we Truman from the Truman
Show?
I guess you could be right, but what if you're not? What if Trump is actually an outsider?
He's never really ever been part of the elite, not really. If he is truly an outsider, then
these people have been a party to an attempted coup against a duly-elected President.
And if so, then that's sedition and they should hang.
@PetrOldSack Trump is just a puppet, well maybe a bit more, of the part of the MIC and
Deep State that apparently has a different agenda. This is not to say that they are "good
people" but they seem to want to keep the US as a functioning republic and a major power.
Maybe they have some plans re the other group(s) in the elites that are extremely dangerous
for those groups. Which would explain why those groups ("globalists") want to remove those
elements of influence people behind Trump get from the fact that he is the president. This
explains why fake Covid-19 was so pumped by the media and when that apparently did not work
they moved on to BLM "color revolution". It is interesting how all of this plays out, as it
will decide the fate of the world. Ironically, Xi, Putin and other leaders that represent
groups wanting to maintain (some) sovereignty of their states have a common enemy, even as
their states are in competition, namely "globalist" elements within their own power
structures.
One of the goals of the British security service, MI5, is to control the leader or deputy
leader of any subversive organisation larger than a football team. The same is likely true in
every country.
The typical criticism of MI5 is that it is too passive, and does not use its knowledge to
close down hostile groups. In Algeria, the opposite happened: the Algerian security service
infiltrated the most extreme Islamist group in the 1990s and aggravated the country's civil
war by committing massacres, with the goal of creating public revulsion for the
Islamists.
This range of possibilities makes it hard to figure out what the Deep State and other
manipulators are doing.
@Sean Frey is a weak Leftist. The equally weak Governor (another Leftie) needed to handle
the situation. He didn't. Trump told him that the feds would help if he asked; he didn't.
This is all on the state and local governments. They did nothing except to tell the cops
to stand down while the city got looted and burned.
If Trump had sent in the military, they would have screamed blue murder. They probably
would have called for his impeachment. Of course, that's what they wanted Trump to do. Thank
goodness Trump didn't fall for their trap.
So the NYT has joined the vanguard af the American People's Revolution?! People change sides
and not all organisations are uniform, even the CIA. There has to be some organisation to
these protests and whoever is providing it, I doubt the protesters are complaining, but want
even more of it, and for it to be more effective, widespread and to grow. And finding
protesters is no problem now or in the future considering the state of the economy, business
closures, rising unemployment, expensive education. What are all these young people supposed
to do? Sit at home playing video games, surfing porn, watching TV? Or go on a holiday? Now in
these circumstances? I guess they're bored with all that so they may as well hit the streets
and stay on the streets as they'll be on the streets anyway when they get evicted because
they can't pay the rent. And as they're being impoverished they may as well steal what they
can. And obviously they don't fear arrest and are happy to get a criminal record since even a
clean sheet won't get them a job in the failing economy, and they know that. I'm sure many
want a solution that will provide for their future. But who is providing it? So it's on them
to create it. Of course politicians will want to use them and manipulate them for their own
ends. And the elites, and the deep state too. And sure there are Jews in it as in anything.
And sure they're fat, ugly, and degenerate – they're Americans reflecting their own
society. But where it goes nobody knows
@Mike Whitney "Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question."
99% of them wouldn't have a clue as to any larger strategic direction. Sorry,
but to repeat myself: "useful idiots".
"Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?"
Well, duh! It seems likely that the entire George Floyd murder on camera was a staged
event, its even possible that he/it was never really killed. See:
PSYOP? George Floyd "death" was faked by crisis actors to engineer revolutionary riots,
video authors say
" Numerous videos are now surfacing that directly question the authenticity of the claimed
"death" of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Several trending videos appear to reveal
striking inconsistencies in the official explanations behind the reported death of Floyd.
These videos appear to reinforce the idea that the George Floyd incident was, if not entirely
falsified, most definitely planned and rigged in advance. It is already confirmed that the
Obama Foundation was tweeting about George Floyd more than a week before he is claimed to
have died. "
"Obviously, since Barack Obama doesn't own a time machine, the only way the Obama
Foundation could have tweeted about George Floyd a week before his death is it the entire
event was planned in advanced.
Note: We do not endorse every claim in each of the videos shown below, but we believe the
public has the right to hear dissenting views that challenge the official narratives, and we
believe public debate that incorporates views from all sides of a particular issue offers
inherent merit for public discourse.
Numerous video authors are now spotting stunning inconsistencies in the viral videos that
claim to show white cops murdering George Floyd in broad daylight. Without exception, these
video authors, many of whom are black, believe:
at least one of the "police officers" was actually a hired crisis actor who has appeared
in other staged events in recent years.
that the black man depicted in the viral videos is not, in fact, an individual named
George Floyd.
that the responding medical personnel were not EMTs but were in fact mere crisis actors
wearing police costumes.
Each of the video authors shown below reveals still images and video clips that they say
support their claims. Here's an overview of some of the most intriguing videos and the
summary of what those videos are saying: .":
@Mike Whitney I think you are correct Mike. IF blm got $100 million from anyone it
follows that they are beholden -- & the only entities capable of such "generosity" are
"establishment" it therefore follows that BLM are beholden (controlled) by the establishment
( .the deep state .)
Now the New York Times thinks that the black, brown, white and yellow lives are dispensable
does it mean their own GRAY lives matter more to the rest of us? No, it does not!
The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably
involved.
It seems right and logical.
But what I don't understand, is why the deep state elite don't understand that in the end the
collapse of the "traditional society" will touch them too in their private life. In the long
run the ruining of the US will ruin everybody in the US including them. Don't they get it ?
Maybe they are intoxicated by their own lies are are begining to lose their lucidity. Like Al
Pacino intoxicated by his own coke in scarface.
@MrFoSquare What we need are some solid numbers:
How many arrested? (& who are they?)
How many properties destroyed?
Dollars worth of damage?
Which cities had the worst damage?
A social media "history" of protest/riot posting ?
Where/who are responsible for brick/frozen water bottle stashes?
Travel histories of notable offenders?
Links between "protesters" & the media ?
Money? Who/what/when/how was all this funded on a day-to-day basis.
And so on.
Mike Whitney doesn't know the first thing. It takes a lot of organizing time and personnel to
properly prepare and lead in the field any large public protest. There are people experienced
in this. Getting them together and deploying their capability is required.
These protests are classic unplanned, spontaneous actions. At least the first major wave
of them. Only after some time will parties try to lead, organize. Or manipulate.
First thing, it's like trying to herd cats. So, you need marshals. Lots of them. Ably led,
and clearly seen. Just to try and steer a protest down one street or to some point. You need
first aid available, provision for seniors and children. Water. Knowledgeable people to deal
with the media.
People who know what they're doing to deal with senior police. With city transit, buses,
taxis. Hospitals, road construction, fire departments. A good protest cleans itself up too so
provide the means for that. Loudspeakers, music – all this an more has to be organized.
By some people.
And 100% of this or even a hint of organizing is not evident at these protests. And the
evidence is easy to see. Organizers advertise too for volunteers. Everything in plain sight
for those with eyes to see.
If you are stupid enough to think that some handful of fruitcakes from some official
agency could even find their way to a protest, actually have a clue how to conduct themselves
and not get laughed at or just ignored – there's no hope for you. You know nothing
about protests and are pedalling fantasy.
@obwandiyag As usual, you're completely delusional. Most police departments are in the
exact same boat as the municipalities that fund them: one downturn (like, say, a public
lockdown followed by public disorder and looting) from going right to the wall.
There won't be any need to "defund" police; most of America's cities and towns are soon to
be on the bread line, looking for those Ctrl-P federal dollars. Quarterly deficits of twenty
trillion, here we come!
@Thomasina The power elite have different factions and they fight each other to a point,
but they do not try to expose each other. This is why none of Trump enemies are going to be
put in prison.
This is why Trump supports don't know what Genie Engery is, not that they would care.
The scum Trump appointed should tell you what side he's on.
I don't know if Antifa is run directly by the three-letter FedGov agencies. But I do know
that the university is the breeding ground for these vermin, and all universities, even
"private" ones, are largely funded by the governmnent, and are tax exempt.
@schnellandine The Hispanics in America are similar to waves of Italians in the late 19th
and early 20th Centuries, except the numbers are far larger and never ending, which impacts
assimilation. The Hispanics are the ones doing the hard physical labor for low pay, and they
are the ones in American society to invest in learning the skill to perform some of those
backbreaking, low paying jobs well. They are the Super Marios of today. Many of them ply
their trades as small businessmen. They are thankful for their jobs and the people they
serve.
Many are loving, salt-of-the-earth type people who genuinely love their blanco friends.
Howard Stern thinks their music sucks but at least they sing songs about el corazon, music of
the heart and of love. (No one is comparable to the Italians in that department, but what do
you suppose happened to the beautiful love music produced by black male vocalists as late as
a generation ago?) Except for the fact that Hispanics come from countries with long
traditions of corrupt, El Patron governments which unfortunately they want to enact here as a
social safety net, they are often traditional in their attitudes about religion and family.
Of course, they get in drunken brawls, abuse their women, and the graft and incompetence in
their institutions can be outrageous. The reason they flee here is because the world they've
created themselves in the shithole places they've leaving isn't as good as the West created
by Caucasian cultures. The law abiding, decent family people I'm speaking of prosper
alongside of whites and many come to recognize that whites and Hispanics can build a common
destiny that's far preferable to the direction black agitators are taking blacks in America.
So you think that everything they've done to Trump has been one big show and he's been
in on it? The pussy tape, Stormy Daniels, spying on his campaign, the leaking, the Steele
Dossier, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, his impeachment, lying to the FISA Courts by the FBI,
CIA's involvement, Mueller Report, DNC server, Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac,
fake news media, sanctuary cities, courts disobeying his executive orders, Covid-19,
protests – all of it has been a ruse to fool us into thinking that Trump is a
legitimate opposition?
Absolutely.
Keep the people fighting among each other and divided?
Yes, but the elite do not fear the majority they are in complete control through
insouciance and stupidity on the majority.
I guess you could be right, but what if you're not? What if Trump is actually an
outsider?
He's not his actions and inactions are impossible to logically explain away he is a minion
of the Deep State.
The protest movement is directed and controlled by the same zionists who control the
government and their goal is the destruction of America and they are being allowed to do the
wrecking and destruction that they are doing, as this helps full fill the zionist communist
takeover of America.
To see where this is leading read up on the bolshevik-communist revolution in Russia and
the communist revolution in China and Cuba and Cambodia, and there is the future of
America.
@Christophe GJ They enjoy human suffering. Who knows maybe their compensation is linked
to dead bodies. The deep state types will dwell in gate communities that will never be
breached. The perks of owning both segments of the "opposition." As for the CIA's owners, a
sharp depopulation has been their goal for some time. Why it has to be so ghoulish and
prolong is anyone's guess.
@Brian Reilly "To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested,
charged, prosecuted, defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks."
Yeah, some city tried that. To try to satisfy the "Get White police out of our
neighborhoods" they did -- they re-orged and sent only black cops into black neighborhoods,
and let the White cops police the White neighborhoods. And the BLACK POLICE SUED to end that!
They were, they claimed (and legitimately, too!) being treated unfairly by making THEM police
the most violent, the most dangerous, the most deadly neighborhoods, and "protecting" the
White cops from that duty by letting only the White cops work the nice neighborhoods. They
WON too!
(note: "IKAGO" = "I know a good one." the all-too-often excuse from the unawakened!)
=====================
I don't mourn the loss of Baltimore. Or Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Atlanta, etc etc etc.
It is ultimately a huge benefit to have Negroes concentrated in these huge teeming Petri
dishes.
As always I advocate the complete White withdrawal from these horrible urban sh_tholes,
and as always I advocate that since Negroes do not want to be policed, to immediately stop
policing them.
And to anyone who might be naive enough to say "hey, there are good people in those
neighborhoods, who try to work and raise their kids, who obey the law and who abhor the
lawlessness and rioting as much as anyone" . my response is that these same IKAGO's voted for
a Negro president, for Negro mayors, Negro city council members, Negro police chiefs and
Negro school superintendents, and now they are getting exactly what they deserve, good and
effing hard.
I have ZERO sympathy for blacks.
=====================
And the new rule:
Remember when seconds count, the police are not even obligated to respond.
Of course "deep state elements" operate in protests! What A STUPID question, Whitney. All
kinds of political tricksters, manipulators, provocateurs, idiots, fools, people suffering
from ennui, you name it Mike, they're involved. And yes, the murder of the black man in
Minneapolis was the trigger.
That's not the only cause of social unrest. There are lots of reasons that drive the
displeasure of the mass of people and it's not the silly "deep state". Before you use that
term, if you want any sort of salute from intelligent people, you need to define your terms.
Or are just just waving a red flag so you can attract a bunch of stupid Trumpsters?
There's a whole lot of deep state out there, good buddy. Just examine the federal budget
and whatever money you cannot assign to a particular institution or specific purpose, that is
funding your your "deep state". It's billions and billions. But there is no Wizard of Oz
behind the curtain to spend it all on nefarious purposes. Sure, the deep state destroyed the
WTC and killed a few thousand people. These hidden operators can do things civilians can only
imagine, but they cannot create movements, Whitney. You just can't fool all of the people all
of the time.
Are you having a touch of brain degeneration, Mike, like dear autocrat in the White
House?
A great article. While Trump may have some ties to the Deep State, I doubt very much that he
is their puppet. He won the nomination because he was against some of the Deep States key
policies. He even tried to implement his policies but mostly failed due to traitors in his
administration and all the coordinated coup attempts.
One recent development that causes me to think that this article is spot on is the blatant
attacks by retired generals and even currently serving generals against a sitting president.
Even Defense Sec. Esper (the Raytheon lobbyist) criticized Trump's comments on the
Insurrection Act, which was totally unnecessary since Trump only said that he had the
authority to use it.
The coordinated criticism of the generals just reminds me of how similar it is to the
coordinated effort by the CIA, FBI, State Department and NSA to use the Russiagate hoax and
impeachment hoax to remove Trump. The riots, the money funneled from BLM to Biden 2020,
support of Antifa by the MSM and the generals treasonous actions are not coincidences.
I'm surprised by the generally low level of the responses.
Mr. Whitney:
There haven't been 'millions' of protestors, maybe some thousands.
Please list the "valid grievances" that negros hold concerning the cops; are the cops
supposed to raise black IQ? These riots need to be suppressed pronto; don't waste your time
waiting for the fat orange buffoon to do anything.
Negros have no 'communities', and never will.
I'm wondering why Mr. Unz thinks he is required to let leftists like Whitney post
here.
(1)-There is a 'deep state'
(2)-(1) does NOT imply that negros are a noble race.
The opening statement is quite true. They've apparently been organizing under the radar for
some years now. Diversity is our greatest weakness and these fissures that run through the
country can be exploited. Blacks have been weaponized and used as the spearpoint along with
the more purposeful real Antifa (lots of wannabes walking around clad in black). Everything
has really been well coordinated and the Gene Sharp playbook followed. These 'color
revolution' employees are actually all over the globe, funded by various front groups and
NGOs. The money trail often leads to various billionaires like the ubiquitous Soros but
people like that may just be acting as fronts themselves. Supposed leftists working against
the interests of the value producing working class?
The George Floyd murder was a obviously a wholly staged Deep State event, complete with
the usual crisis actors, as this video summary clearly illustrates :
@Brian Reilly"To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested,
charged, prosecuted, defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks. No
white person should have anything to do with it. "
And when these same blacks attack or steal from a White person, which they often do, do
you think they'll get a just punishment from their fellow blacks or a high five?
The solution to the black problem is complete separation, there is no other way.
@Mike Whitney But why do you assume the CIA wants to get rid of Trump? Isn't that
tantamount to judging a book by its cover? Americans have been on to the evil shenanigans of
the intelligence community for decades. Trump is nothing more than controlled opposition and
a false sense of security for "patriots". One needs look no further than the prognostications
of Q to see that Trump is the beneficiary of deep state propaganda. The CIA's modus operandi,
together with the rest of the IC, is to deceive. So if they appear to be doing one thing
(fighting Trump) you can be sure they intend the opposite.
Americans are nose deep in false dichotomies, and Trump is a pole par excellence. Despite
his flagrant history as an NYC liberal, putative fat cat, swindler, and network television
superstar, he is now depicted as either a populist outsider, or a literal Nazi. The simple
fact is that he is an actor and confidence artist. He is playing a role, and he is playing to
both sides of the aisle, and his work is to deceive the entirety of the American public,
together with the mockingbird media, which is merely the yin to his pathetic yang.
Too many Americans think they have a choice, or a chance, by simply minding their own
business, consuming their media of choice, and voting. In fact, Americans are face to face
with the end of their history, as the country has been systematically looted for decades, and
will soon be demolished as it is no longer profitable to the oligarchs who manage the globe.
Obama-Trump is a 1-2 knockout punch.
@Uomiem That's a good point, and it's of the main problems I do have with Trump: his
cabinet picks and financial backers (Adelsen, Singer, et al.). But in fairness, what happens
when he tries to pick someone who's not approved by the system? Well, if they're cabinet
officers, they'll never get approved by the senate. And even if they're not, they will be
driven out of the White House somehow–just like Gen. Flynn and Steve Bannon. In short,
when it comes to staffing, Trump's choices are limited by the same swamp he's fighting. Sad
but true
@Thomasina Interesting comments by the Duran but I cannot find any evidence of a direct
investment by the CIA in Facebook. The CIA's investment arm, In-Q-Tel, did invest in early
Facebook investor Peter Theil's company Palantir and other companies. Also, Graylock Partners
were also early investors in Facebook along with Peter Theil and the head of Graylock is
Howard Cox who served on In-Q-Tel's board of directors. But these are indirect inferences.
Unlike the clear and direct investment of the CIA in the company that was eventually
purchased by Google and is now called Google Earth, I can't find any evidence of a direct
investment by the CIA in Facebook. I have no doubt it's true since it's a perfect tool for
data gathering. Do you have any direct evidence of such an investment?
Is the Deep State stage-managing the "BLM" protests to further an agenda? Absolutely.
The main influence of the Deep State is felt in its complete dominance of the controlled
media.
Like mantras handed down by the commissars, the mainstream media keep repeating key
phrases to narrowly define what's happening: "mostly peaceful protests", "anti-black
racism".
The media is an organ of the Deep State. The Deep State will decide when the protests will
end, and when that day arrives, the media will suddenly pivot on cue like a school of fish or
a flock of birds.
Perhaps some non believers in the Deep State would like to explain why the multi trillion
dollar corporations in America are supporting BLM, Antifa and other anarchy groups since on
the face of it anarchy would be antithetical to these corporations?
Hint: The wealthy and powerful (aka Deep State) know that anarchy divides a populous
thereby removing their ability to resist their true enemy and even more draconian laws. The
die is being cast at this moment and the complete subjugation of the American people will,
probably, be effectuate by the end of this year. A full court press is under way and life is
about to change for 99% of the American people.
If you disagree with my hint correct it.
Too many Americans think they have a choice, or a chance, by simply minding their own
business, consuming their media of choice, and voting. In fact, Americans are face to face
with the end of their history, as the country has been systematically looted for decades,
and will soon be demolished as it is no longer profitable to the oligarchs who manage the
globe. Obama-Trump is a 1-2 knockout punch.
Your points are excellent. All tragic, devastating events in the last, at least, 20
years have been staged or played to facilitate the total control by the Deep State.
The problem is power – and the nature of those who lust for it. The police are very
powerful, by necessity and the nature of police work is the exercise of power – on the
street.
Not to mention the fact that police forces, like every other institution, are managed from
the top. Sgt. Bernstein back at the station calls the shots, gets to decide who is hired /
fired and generally runs the department like a CEO runs a company. Not all cops are rotten,
but if Sgt. Bernstein is a scumbag, the whole department tends to behave as a scumbag.
I'll give you two guesses, the second one doesn't count, as to which tribe of psychopaths
– who call themselves "chosen" – have mastered the art of playing both sides
against the middle, using the police as a very powerful tool to accomplish an ancient agenda
of world-domination, straight out of The Torah.
The police are just another sad story of the destruction of America, by Shlomo.
@Mike Whitney Any explanation that ignores that the catalyst for what is happening is the
Federal Reserve Notes free fall is not a good explanation.
This is a failed Communist Putsch. The people pushing it have enough control of major
cities to keep it alive but not enough to push it into the heartland. 400 million guns and a
few billion bullets are protecting freedom in the USA just like they were intended to.
All failed communist revolutions end in fascism taking power. The Yahoo news comments
sections are way to big to censor properly and they are already taking on a Fascist tone with
almost half the posters. This is only just beginning and most people are beginning to
understand that these lies non whites tell about the fake systemic racism are too dangerous
to go unchallenged. The idea that the protests ,the protests not the riots, have no
foundation in truth is starting to work its way to the forefront of white peoples minds.
Non whites are coddled by the establishment in the USA and no real racists have any power
in the USA so this whole thing is and has been for 50 years based on lies.
The jew mob is going to lose all their economic power over the next year or so as the Fed
Note hyper-inflates. The mob knows this and made a grab for ideological power using low IQ
ungrateful non whites they have been inculcating with anti white ideals for decades as their
foot soldiers.
They are screwed because the places they control are parasitic just like they are. Cities
are full of people making nothing and pretty much just doing service jobs for each other. All
the things needed to keep cities going come from outside the cities and the jew mob is not in
charge in the places that actually produce things. Not like they are in the cities
anyway.
Ignoring the currency rises makes you dishonest Mike.
I think the leadership and tactics of the police are deplorable. I can only surmise that the
local political leadership in many cities is on the inside of this latest scam.
The police should be able to launch attacks on the crowd to single out those who are
Antifa activists. That is what the riot police in France would do. They should try to ignore
the rabble behind which these activists are sheltering.
By remaining on the defensive and without using the element of surprise to capture these
activists, the police are sitting ducks.
My dad told me what it was like in Cairo when the centre of the city was destroyed in
1952. I was tiny at that time and remember my mother carrying me. We watched Cairo burning in
the distance. We were on the roof of the huge house of my Egyptian grandfather in
Heliopolis.
The looters and arsonists were well-equipped. It was not by any means spontaneous. They
smashed the locks on the draw-down shutters of the shops with sledge hammers. Next, they
looted the shop. Lastly, they tossed in Molotov cocktails. The commercial heart of Cairo was
largely destroyed in a few hours. Cinemas and the Casino were burnt. Cairo was a very
pleasant metropolis in those days. It became prosperous during WW2 by supplying the
Allies.
My family's small factory was in the very centre of Cairo – in Abbassia. My father
rounded up his workers to defend the factory. Many lived on the premises. They were all tough
Sa'idi from Upper
Egypt. Many were Coptic Christians. They all had large staffs that they knew how to use. The
arsonists and looters kept well clear.
JUNE 9, 2020 CityLab University: A Timeline of U.S. Police Protests
The latest protests against police violence toward African Americans didn't appear out of
nowhere. They're rooted in generations of injustice and systemic racism.
@Sean said:
"While it is a possibility that whites could lose control of their society, and see it fall
into the hands of an explicitly anti -[r]acist elite/ minorities alliance,"
"Anti-racist?
The entire matter is "explicit" racism directed against Euro-whites.
@gay troll "But why do you assume the CIA wants to get rid of Trump?"
John Brennan collaborated with James Comey on the Russian collusion narrative. Brennan is
indicative of the upper-echelon CIA and its orientation towards the globalist billionaire
class.
@Loup-Bouc Maybe you also noticed that the opening pages of the article suggested that
the author was unhinged when he made so much of an alleged editorial in the NYT which wasn't
an editorial but an opinion piece by an activist. And what about the spontaneous eruptions of
protest all round the world? Masterminded by the US "Deep State"? Absurd.
Mr. Whitney may have got to an age when he can no longer understand the young and their
latest fashionable fatuities and follies.
@obwandiyag " The assholes on this asshole site will not let you say that what is
important is how the super-billionaires control us. "
Nonsense, I rant against the largely Jewish super-billionaires all the time.
Truth is that blacks and working class whites are in relatively similar positions compared
to the 1%. We should be seeking alliances with people like Rev. Farrakhan, but instead, for
some curious reason, big Jewish money is pouring into keeping racial grievances alive and
kicking. It looks very much like a divide and conquer strategy.
Where did the antiwar and Occupy Wall Street movements go after Obama's election? My guess
is that the financial elite saw the danger of having OWS ask questions about the bailouts, so
they devoted a ton of time and energy into pushing racial grievance politics, gender neutral
bathrooms and the like. Their co-ethnics in the media collaborated with them in making sure
only one perspective made the news.
PS: if you don't like the website, simply avoid visiting it. Trust me, no one will miss
your inane posts.
"90% of Americans are unlikely to even see more than ten black people in their entire
lives."
I sure hope you're talking about IRL, because I see more than ten black people in any
commercial break on any TV show on any cable or network TV station every hour of every day.
In fact, it's at least 50/50 B/W and it feels more like 60/40 B/W. And it's always the blacks
who are in charge, the whites spill chips all over the kitchen floor
@SunBakedSuburb 15 seasons of The Apprentice on NBC is indicative of Trump's
orientation towards the globalist billionaire class. It sure was nice of NBC to thus
rehabilitate Trump's image after it became clear he was a cheat who could not even hold down
a casino. From fake wrestler to fake boardroom CEO, Trump has ALWAYS been made for TV.
As for Russiagate, it was a transparent crock of shit from the moment Clapper sent his
uncorrobated assertions under the aegis of "17 intelligence agencies". You assume the point
of the charade was to "get Trump", but really Russiagate was designed to deceive "liberals"
just as Q was designed to deceive "conservatives". It is the appearance of conflict that
serves to divide Americans into two camps who both believe the other is at fault for all of
society's ills. In fact, it is the Zionists and bankers who are to blame for society's ills,
and like the distraction of black vs. white, Democrat vs. Republican keeps everybody's
attention away from the real chauvinists and criminals.
@Sean Well, I can't deny that yours is an extremely original interpretation. It sure made
me think. I can't say I'm convinced, though it doesn't seem to have any conspicuous a priori
inconsistency with facts. I guess time will tell.
@Realist Agree. Someone posted he had a friend at Minneapolis airport. Incoming planes
were full of antifa types the day after Floyd died.
They are very well organized. They are notorious around universities. Well, not
universities in dangerous black neighborhoods. They live like students in crowded apartments
and organize all their movements. Plenty of dumb kids to recruit. Plenty of downwardly mobile
White grads who can't get jobs or into grad s hook because they're White. Those Whites go
into liberal rabble rousing instead of rabble rousing against affirmative action, so
brainwashed are they. Portland is a college town. That's why antifa is so well organized
there. Seattle's a college town too as is Chicago.
Why ANTIFA doesn't loot banks, doesn't stand in front od Soros home, JPMorgan headquarters,
big corporations, Bezos business .etc? Because rich are paying for riots ..the same way they
payed to support Hitler during WWII.
@Anon Thanks for highlighting the complex racial politics -- in this case between
Hispanics and Africans. That was something Ron Unz got right as well -- independently of the
numerology -- in the other article; basically saying that there have been a lot of various
social-engineering projects going on.
Naturally I'm liable for everything else you said ;/ no comment, no contest,
I think it will be alright if we can get back to basics, natural rights, republican
representative organization, pluralism, etc The corporate nightmare has everyone crammed into
a vat of human resources. Undo that, see how it goes, then take it from there.
@Mike Whitney The reason most of the rioters arrested were native New Yorkers is that
they were the useful idiots designated fall guys.
The organizers are adept at changing clothes hats and sunglasses. Their job is to get
things started by smashing windows of a Nike's store and running away letting a few looters
be arrested.
I remember something written by an Indian communist, not Indian nationalist How To Start a
Riot in the 1920s.
1 Start rumors about abuse of Indians by British.
2. Decide where to start the riots.
3 Best place is in the open air markets around noon. The merchants will have collected
substantial money. The local lay abouts will be up and about.
4 Instigators start fights with the merchants raid cash boxes overturn tables and the riot is
on.
The ancient Roman politicians started riots that way. It's standard procedure in every
country in every era. All this fuss and discussion by the idiot intelligentsia is ridiculous
as is everything the idiot intelligentsia thinks, writes and does.
We Americans experience a black riot every few years, just as we experience floods,
droughts, blizzards , earthquakes, forest fires, tornadoes floods and hurricanes.
As long as we have blacks and liberal alleged intellectuals we'll have riots.
"... Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here in apathetic Australia. ..."
"... When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger - their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research... ..."
"... " We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008 ..."
Sky News Australia In this Special Investigation Sky News speaks to former spies, politicians and investigative journalists to
uncover whether US President Donald Trump is really at war with "unelected Deep State operatives who defy the voters".
George Soros, The clintons, The royal family, The Rothschild's, the Federal reserve as a whole, The modern Democrat, cia, fbi,
nsa, Facebook, Google, not to mention all the faceless unelected bureaucrats who create and push policies that impact our every
day lives. This, my lads, is the deep state. They run our world and get away with whatever they want until someone in their circle
loses their use (Epstein)
The Cabal owns the US intelligence agencies, the media, and Hollywood. That's how all these big name corrupted figure heads
aren't in prison for their crimes. The Clinton email scandal is a prime example. This is much bigger than the USA... it's effects
are world wide.
The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion: 1 - Demoralization 2 - Destabilization 3 - Crisis 4 - Normalization Are you not
entertained? The above is "their" roadmap. Learn what it means and spread this far & wide, as that will be the means by which
to end this.
President JFK on April 17, 1961: "Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared
in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching
troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat
conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of 'clear
and present danger,' then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman
or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of
elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match." thoughts: by saying,
'conducts the Cold War' did he directly call out the CIA???
Most troubling now it is known about the deep state: is Trump a double agent just another puppet just giving the appearance
of working against the deep state?
Thank you Australians for having rhe courage to speak out for us Patriots!!! We know the Deep State Cabal retaliated with the
fires. We love you guys from 💖💗
Well done Skynews. THE DEEP STATE IS REAL. I woke up 10+ years ago. Turn off the TV for 1-2 years to study and awaken. Make
a start on learning with David ickes Videos and books. WWG1 WGA
Before I go and pass this on to as many as I can get to follow it I just wanted to commend those that produced this and I hope
that it gets fuller dissemination because it is such a rare truth in such a time of utter deceit by most all of the MSM (Main
Stream Media) that this country I reside in uses to supposedly inform the American people ...what a crock! Thank You, Australia
for making this available (but beware, the Five Eyes are always very active in related matters to this) ... This has been welcome
confirmation of what many of us have known and attempted to tell others for about 5 years now. Sadly, I doubt that has or will
help very much, The System is so corrupted from top to bottom ... IMnsHO and E.
Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other
financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific
issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here
in apathetic Australia.
When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger -
their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research...
" We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will
be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008
14:20 I met a guy from Canada in the early
2000s, a telephone technician, told me about when he worked at the time for the government telephone company in the early 80s.
He was given a really strange job one day, to go do some work in the USA. Some kind of repair work that required someone with
experience and know-how, but apparently someone from out-of-country, he guesses, because there certainly must have been many people
in the USA who could have done it, he figured. He flew down to oregon, then was driven for hours out into the middle of nowhere
in navada, he said. They came to a small building that was surrounded by fencing etc. Nothing interesting. Nothing else around,
he said, as far as he could see. They went in, and pretty much all that was there was an elevator. They went in, and he said,
he didn't know how many floors down it went, or how fast it was moving, but seemed to take quite sometime, he figured about 8
stories down, was his guess, but he didn't know. He was astounded to see that there was telephone recording stuff in there about
the size of two football-fields. He said they were recording everything. He said, even at that time, it was all digital, but they
didn't have the capacity to record everything, so it was set up to monitor phone calls, and if any key words were spoken, it would
start recording, and of course it would record all phone calls at certain numbers. "So, who knows what they've got in there today,
he said" back in the early 2000s. So, imagine what they've got there today, in the 2020s. I didn't know whether or not to believe
this story, until I saw a doc about all of the telephone recording tapes they have in storage, rotting away, which were used to
record everyone's phone calls onto magnetic tape. Literally tonnes and tonnes of tapes, just sitting there in storage now, from
the 1970s, the pre-digital days. They've always been doing it. They're just much better at it today than ever. Now they can tell
who you are by your voice, your cadence, your intonation, etc. and record not just a call here and there, but everything.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didnt exist" Credit the --- Usual Suspects ---- That's
the playbook of the "Deep State"
The last guy (denying the deep state's existence) was lying. When someone shakes their head when talking in the affirmative
you can be 100% sure it is a lie (micro expressions 101).
Bitcoin Blockchain
1 day ago
1950–1953: Korean War United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960–1975: Vietnam War United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion United States vs. Cuba
1983: Grenada United States intervention
1989: U.S.Invasion of Panama United States vs. Panama
1990–1991: Persian Gulf War United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995–1996: Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina United States as part of NATO acted as peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2001–present: Invasion of Afghanistan United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism
2003–2011: Invasion of Iraq The United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
2004–present: War in Northwest Pakistan United States vs. Pakistan, mainly drone attacks
2007–present: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya United States and Coalition forces vs. al-Shabaab militants
2009–2016: Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean) NATO allies vs. Somali pirates
2011: Intervention in Libya U.S. and NATO allies vs. Libya
2011–2017: Lord's Resistance Army U.S. and allies against the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2014–2017: U.S.-led Intervention in Iraq U.S. and coalition forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
2014–present: U.S.-led intervention in Syria U.S. and coalition forces against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syria
2015–present: Yemeni Civil War Saudi-led coalition and the U.S., France, and Kingdom against the Houthi rebels, Supreme Political Council in Yemen, and allies
2015–present: U.S. intervention in Libya
Deep State is the "Wealthy Oligarchy", an "International Mafia" who controls the Central Bank (a privacy owned banking system
which controls the worlds currencies). The Wealthy Oligarchy "aka Deep State" controls most all Democratic countries, and controls
the International Media. In the United States, both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by the Wealthy Oligarchy
aka Deep State.
A beautifully crafted and delivered discourse, impressive! As a Londoner I have become increasingly interested in Sky News
Australia, you are a breath of fresh air and common sense in this world of ever growing liberal media hysteria!
I have to laugh at the people, including our supposedly unbiased and intelligent media, who said the Russia thing was the truth
when it was nothing but a conspiracy theory. Everything else was a conspiacy theory according to the dems ans the mainstream media..
Wall Street and the banksters control the CIA. One can imagine the ramifications of control of the world via the moneyed interests
backed by James Bond and the Green Berets, the latter, under control of the CIA.
Deep State Powers have been messing with your USA long before your War of Independence . Your Founding Fathers knew , why do
you think they wrote your Constitution that way. Now everyone is always crying about something but fail to realize you gave your
freedoms away over time . The Deep State never left it just disguised itself and continued to regain control under a new face
or ideaology. Follow the money . "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."― Edmund Burke
After the John F. Kennedy assassination the took full power,those who are in power now are the descendants of the criminals
who did it,some of their sons just have a different last name but they are the same family,like George Bush and John Kerry are
cousins but different last name and the list goes and goes.
Council on Foreign Relation is more Deep State than CIA and FBI . The two worked for CFR. CFR tel president whom to appoint
to what positions. Nixon got a list of 22 deep state candidates for top US position and all were hired. Obama appointed 11 from
the list. Kissinger is behind the scenes strings puller also.
Thanks Sky and Peter for bringing this to the mainstream attention, it really is time! Wished you had aired John Kiriakou,s
other claims off child sex trafficking to the elites which has been corroborated by so many other sources now and is the grossest
deformity of this deep state which you can see footage of trump talking about. I am amazed and greatful to see Trump has done
more about this than all other presidents in the last 20 years. Lets end this group. All we need to do is shine the light on them
The CIA are only an intelligence and operations functioning part of the deep state its much more complex and larger than just
the CIA. The British empire controls the deep state they always have it is just a modern version of the old East India Company
controlled by the same families with the same ideology.
https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/
It's funny how for decades "the people" were crying on their knees about how bad every president was n how corrupt n controlled
they were. Now you've got a president with no special interest groups publicly calling out the deep state n ur still bitching.
U know you've got someone representing the people when the cia n fbi r out to get him. In 50 years trump will be looked back at
with the likes of Washington, Lincoln n jfk. Once the msm smear campaign is out of everyone's brain.
When they start spying on people within the United States and when they used in National Defense authorization act that gave
them a lot of power since after 911 to give them more power now they have Homeland Security which is the next biggest threat to
the United States it can be abused and some of these people have a higher security clearance than the president.... they're not
under control the NSA is one of them you don't mention in here either one is about the more that you don't even know about that
they don't have names are acronyms that we knew about that's why the American people have been blindsided by this overtime they've
been giving all this money to do things... allocation of money they gathered to do this and now Congress itself doesn't know temperature
of Schumer when you caught him saying to see I can get back at you three ways to Sunday I mean he's got some words in this saying
to the president of usa donald trump... basically threatening the President right there.. you can see it's alive and well when
Congress is immune from prosecution from anything or anyone....
"I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world,
all of the bad things that went on, it's called the swamp you know what I did," he asked. "A big favor. I caught the swamp. I
caught them all. Let's see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going
on and nobody else could have done it."
there is no big secret that CIA is deeply involved in drug smuggling operations...i remember interview with ex marine colonel
who said that he was indirectly involved in such operations in panama...
Attempting to infiltrate News rooms😆😅😂 all those faces you see in the MSM are all working for Cia. In 1967 one of the 3
letter agencys bragged about having a reporter working in 1 of the 3 letter news channel!
Wow this was really good. It's funny you showed a clip from abc of kouriakow and it reminded me how much the news in america
has been propagandized and just fake. I'm 38 and it's sad that these days the news is unpatriotic. Well most . Ty sky news Australia
Why no mention of what facilitates the surveilance? Telecom infrastructure is a nations nerve system and the powergrid its
bloodsystem. Who controls them? That is where you find the head of the deep state!
What people aren't aware of is that Facebook YouTube Twitter Instagram Google maps and Google search are all NSA CIA and DIA
creations and CEO's are only highly paid operatives who are not the creators but the face of a product and what better way to
collect all of your information is by you giving it to them
More please? A subject for another installment regarding the Deep State could be Banking, Federal Reserves and Fiat currencies.
Later, another video could be Russia's success at expelling the Deep State in 2000 after it took them over (for a 2nd time) in
1991. Be cognizant, the Deep State initially had for a short time from 1917 via 'it's' 'Bolshivics,' orchestrated the creation
of the Soviet Union through the Bolshivic take over of Russia from it's independence minded and Soveriegn Czarist led Eastern
Orthodox State. Now, President Trump is preventing a similar Deep State take-over by Intelligence agencies, Corporations and elected
political thugs as bad as Leon Trotsky and V I Lennin were to the Russian Czar. The Soviets soon after their (1917) take-over
went Rogue on the Deep State and therefore the Soviet Union was independent until The Deep State orchestrated it's downfall and
anexation of it's substantial wealth and some territory (1991). More, more, more please Sky News, this video was great!
Amazing, Sky News is the ONLY TV News Service in Australia Trying to deliver true news. Australia's ABC news are CIA Deep State
Shills and propagandists - Sarah Ferguson Especially - see her totally CIA scripted Four Corners Report on the Russia Hoax. John
Gantz IS a Deep State Operative Liar.
Isnt it time to see TERM LIMITS in Co gress and to realign our school education to teach the real history of these unites states?
End the control of Congress and watch the agencies fall in step with OUR Conatitution. No one should ever be allowed in Congress
or any other elected position of trust if they are not a devout Constitutionalist. Anyone who takes the oath to see w the people
and fails to so so should be charged with TREASON and removed immediately. Is there a DEEP STATE? Damn right there is and has
been for many decades. Where is our sovereignty? Where is the wealth of a capitalist nation? Why so much poverty and welfare and
why do communists and socialist get away with damaging our country, state or communities. Yes, there has been a deep state filled
with criminals who all need to be charged, tried and executed for TREASON.
The CIA and Australias Federal police have One main Job/activity to feed their Populations with Propaganda & Lies to give them
their Thoughts & Opinions on Everything using their psyOps through MSM News & Programming...you prolly beLIEve this informative
News Story as well. : (
These people denying a deep state with such straight faces are psychopaths. Unwittingly, or maybe not, Schumer made liars of
them with his comment to Maddow
President Trump is correct. He knows exactly what's going on. The 3 letter agencies are up to no good and work against the
fabric of our nation's founding fathers. It's despicable behavior. Just one example is John Brennan (CIA Director) and Barack
Hussein Obama's Terror Tuesdays. Read all about it on the internet now before it's permanently removed. Thank you for creating
this video.
When was the last time we ever witnessed an American President openly abused continually attacked over manufactured news treated
with absolutely no respect for him or the office his family unfairly attacked and misrepresented etc, etc, that's right never,
which proves he threatens the existence of the deep state as discussed. He should declare Martial Law Hang the consequences and
remove every single deep state player everywhere. Foreign influence? read Israel.
People are so fixated on trumps outspoken Sometimes outrageous demeanor which in my opinion it's just being really honest and
yes he can Be rude at times but when you look at the facts He's the only one that has gone against the deep state! those are the
real devils dressed up in sheep's clothing! Wake up!
You are missing the point. It goes further then intelligence agency working against the people. It's the ultra rich literally
trillionaires like the rothchilds that control the cia etc. That is who trump is fighting. The globalists line gates soros etc.
@Ashino Wolf Sushanti As far as I know BLM is also dead silent on the black slave markets
care of Obama and the EU in Libya.
There are also stories that money contributed to BLM will end up going to the DNC.
This is looking like another 1960's type insurrection that will end up the same way: it
will be used by the rich and powerful elites (notice how the corporate controlled media has
gone on one knee for BLM and has gone outright anti-white?), there will be a back lash that
will crush it (right after the election), and its leaders will be either absorbed into the
establishment or offed.
America looks like a hybrid of Stephen King, Brave New World, and 1984, and the rich and
powerful US elites and intel agencies stroke it and love it. Notice that the US super rich
have been raking it in since January 2020? While at the same time Trump is busy making the US
a vassal state of Israel and accelerating the roll-out of Cold War v2 which is just fine with
US elites that will not change with the election of moron Biden (if the people elect Biden
they are electing his VP as Biden will not last long; he is a lot like Yeltsin that was
pumped up on mental stimulants and nutriments to perform for short periods until the next
treatment). What a country, what a ship of fools.
"The FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in London on July
5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton..." Notes and emails that have been
kept so far from Senate investigators show the FBI knew from its earliest interactions with
Christopher Steele in July 2016 that his Russia research project on Donald Trump was connected
to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party .
The information, so far mentioned only glancingly and in footnotes of a Justice Department
report, could provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with the most powerful evidence yet to
confront witnesses about why the bureau concealed the political origins of Steele's work from
the FISA court.
" So far the bureau is slow-walking this stuff, " a source familiar with senators'
frustrations told Just the News. "We need to see these sort of documents before we question key
witnesses."
Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) is seeking a vote later this week to authorize subpoenas
that would compel the Christopher Wray-led FBI to produce witnesses and outstanding documents
for the committee's investigation of the Russia investigators.
The effort to acquire the original source materials began last December after DOJ Inspector
General Michael Horowitz released his explosive report blaming the FBI for 17 mistakes,
omissions and acts of misconduct in seeking a FISA warrant against Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page.
While the headlines since that report have mostly focused on FISA abuses, Senate
investigators have also zeroed in on a handful of little-noticed passages in Horowitz's
narrative that reference original FBI source documents showing what agents and supervisors knew
about Steele, the former MI6 agent, and the firm that hired him, Fusion GPS.
It wasn't until late October 2017 that the public and Congress first learned that the law
firm Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's
campaign, hired Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS research firm to have Steele delve into Trump's
Russia connections .
And FBI officials have been vague in their explanations about when they knew Steele's
research was tied to Clinton and the DNC and why they did not explicitly inform the FISA court
that the Steele dossier used to secure the warrant was funded by Trump's election opponent.
But one passage and two footnotes in Horowitz's report that have largely escaped public
attention suggest the FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in
London on July 5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton and that a separate
office of the FBI passed along information from an informant by Aug. 2, 2016 that Simpson's
Fusion GPS was connected to the DNC.
For instance, the agent in London contacted an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) in
the New York field office (NYFO) shortly after interviewing Steele and obtaining one of the
anti-Trump memos that made up his dossier, according to information in Horowitz's report.
The agent sought advice July 13, 2016 on how to handle the sensitive election-year
allegations from the supervisor in New York, where the FBI had already opened a probe of Page
that would eventually be assumed by Washington headquarters.
"ASAC 1's notes from his July 13 call with Handling Agent 1 closely track the contents of
Report 80, identify Simpson as a client of a law firm, and include the following: 'law firm
works for the Republican party or Hillary and will use [the information described in Report 80]
at some point,'" the Horowitz report stated. "ASAC 1 told us that he would not have made this
notation if Handling Agent 1 had not stated it to him."
Footnote 223 in the report reveals a second line of evidence that came to the FBI from a
confidential human source (CHS) suggesting the Steele-Simpson-Fusion project was tied to
Democrats. That warning was immediately sent to Agent Peter Strzok, the case agent for the
Crossfire Hurricane probe investigating whether Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016
election.
"At approximately the same time that Handling Agent 1 was reporting information about
Simpson to ASAC 1, an FBI agent from another FBI field office sent an email to his supervisor
stating that he had been contacted by a former CHS who 'was contacted recently by a colleague
who runs an investigative firm. The firm had been hired by two entities (the Democratic
National Committee as well as another individual...not name[d]) to explore Donald J. Trump's
longstanding ties to Russian entities.'"
"On or about August 2, 2016, this information was shared by a CD supervisor with the Section
Chief of CD's Counterintelligence Analysis Section I (Intel Section Chief), who provided it
that day to members of the Crossfire Hurricane team (then Section Chief Peter Strzok, SSA 1,
and the Supervisory Intel Analyst,)" the footnote adds.
Senate investigators want to see the original emails and notes from these conversations as
they plan to interrogate dozens of key witnesses in the Russia investigation about whether
there was an intentional effort by he FBI to hide from the courts and Congress the flaws in
their case, exculpatory evidence involving the Trump targets, and derogatory information about
Steele's credibility.
In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence that any Americans, including
anyone associated with the Trump campaign, colluded with Russia to influence the election.
And evidence that has since emerged shows the FBI determined early on that Steele's dossier
included debunked, uncorroborated information and possible Russian disinformation aimed at
smearing Trump , but agents proceeded anyway with their investigation.
" I presumed it was the Clinton campaign, and Glenn Simpson had indicated that . But I was
not aware of the technicality of it being the DNC that was actually the client of Perkins
Coie," Steele testified in March under questioning from lawyers for Russian bankers suing over
his research.
Steele confirmed during that testimony that his notes of a 2016 FBI meeting showed he told
agents about the Clinton connection.
Congressional investigators have now pieced together at least five instances early in the
Russia case where the FBI was warned of the political origins and motives of Steele's work but
failed to fully inform the courts.
Instead, the FBI's FISA warrant application told the judge Steele was working for a person
interested in possibly defeating Trump but without disclosing it was the opposition research
firm specifically hired by Clinton and the DNC through their law firm to find dirt on Trump in
Russia.
Senate investigators are trying to determine whether that omission was part of a larger,
intentional campaign to mislead the FISA court and Congress in order to keep the Russia
investigation going despite a lack of evidence supporting the collusion theory.
" Look, we've got to get to the bottom of this, to find out how they ended up with this
dossier, how it was believed to be accurate, when did they know it was not accurate? "
explained Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) one of the key members of the Judiciary
Committee.
If one ventures into the vast wasteland of American television it is possible to miss the
truly ridiculous content that is promoted as news by the major networks. One particular feature
of media-speak in the United States is the tendency of the professional reporting punditry to
go seeking for someone to blame every time some development rattles the National Security plus
Wall Street bubble that we all unfortunately live in. The talking heads have to such an extent
sold the conclusion that China deliberately released a lethal virus to destroy western
democracies that no one objects when Beijing is elevated from being a commercial competitor and
political adversary to an enemy of the United States. One sometimes even sees that it is all a
communist plot. Likewise, the riots taking place all across the U.S. are being milked for what
it's worth by the predominantly liberal media, both to influence this year's election and to
demonstrate how much the news oligarchs really love black people.
As is often the case, there are a number of inconsistencies in the narrative. If one looks
at the numerous photos of the protests in many parts of the country, it is clear that most of
the demonstrators are white, not black, which might suggest that even if there are significant
pockets of racism in the United States there is also a strong condemnation of that fact by many
white people. And this in a country that elected a black man president not once, but twice, and
that black president had a cabinet that included a large number of African-Americans.
Also, to further obfuscate any understanding of what might be taking place, the media and
chattering class is obsessed with finding white supremacists as
instigators of at least some of the actual violence. It would be a convenient explanation
for the Social Justice Warriors that proliferate in the media, though it is supported currently
by little actual evidence that anyone is exploiting right-wing groups.
Simultaneously, some on the right, to include the president, are blaming legitimately dubbed
domestic
terrorist group Antifa , which is perhaps more plausible, though again evidence of
organized instigation appears to be on the thin side. Still another source of the mayhem
apparently consists of some folks getting all excited by the turmoil and breaking windows and
tossing Molotov cocktails, as did
two upper middle class attorneys in Brooklyn last week.
Nevertheless, the search goes on for a guilty party. Explaining the demonstrations and riots
as the result of the horrible killing of a black man by police which has revulsed both black
and white Americans would be too simple to satisfy the convoluted yearnings of the likes of
Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow.
Which brings us to Russia. How convenient is it to fall back on Russia which, together with
the Chinese, is reputedly already reported to be working hard to subvert the November U.S.
election. And what better way to do just that than to call on one of the empty-heads of the
Barack Obama administration, whose foreign policy achievements included the destruction of a
prosperous Libya and the killing of four American diplomats in Benghazi, the initiation of
kinetic hostilities with Syria, the failure to achieve a reset with Russia and the
assassinations of American citizens overseas without any due process. But Obama sure did talk
nice and seem pleasant unlike the current occupant of the White House.
The predictable Wolf Blitzer had a recent interview with perhaps the emptiest head of all
the empowered women who virtually ran the Obama White House. Susan Rice was U.N. Ambassador and
later National Security Advisor under Barack Obama. Before that she was a Clinton appointee who
served as Undersecretary of State for African Affairs. She is reportedly currently being
considered as a possible running mate for Joe Biden as she has all the necessary qualifications
being a woman and black.
While Ambassador and National Security Advisor, Rice had the reputation of being
extremely abrasive . She ran into trouble when she failed to be convincing in support of
the Obama administration exculpatory narrative regarding what went wrong in Benghazi when the
four Americans, to include the U.S. Ambassador, were killed.
"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all
wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to
hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also,
I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on
my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well. I would not be surprised to
learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."
It should be noted that Rice, a devout Democrat apparatchik, produced no evidence whatsoever
that the Russians were or have been involved in "fomenting" the reactions to the George Floyd
demonstrations and riots beyond the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all
believe that Moscow is responsible for everything. Clinton in particular hopes that some day
someone will actually believe her when she claims that she lost to Trump in 2016 due to Russia.
Even Robert Mueller, he of the Russiagate Inquiry, could not come up with any real evidence
suggesting that the relatively low intensity meddling in the election by the Kremlin had any
real impact. Nor was there any suggestion that Moscow was actually colluding with the Trump
campaign, nor with its appointees, to include National Security Advisor designate Michael
Flynn.
Fortunately, no one took much notice of Rice based on her "experience," or her judgement
insofar as she possesses that quality. Glenn Greenwald
responded :
"This is fuxxing lunacy -- conspiratorial madness of the worst kind -- but it's delivered
by a Serious Obama Official and a Respected Mainstream Newscaster so it's all fine This is
Infowars-level junk. Should Twitter put a 'False' label on this? Or maybe a hammer and sickle
emoji?"
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova accurately described the
Rice performance as a "perfect example of barefaced propaganda." She wrote on her Facebook
page "Are you trying to play the Russia card again? You've been playing too long – come
back to reality" instead of using "dirty methods of information manipulation" despite "having
absolutely no facts to prove [the] allegations go out and face your people, look them in the
eye and try telling them that they are being controlled by the Russians through YouTube and
Facebook. And I will sit back and watch 'American exceptionalism' in action."
It should be assumed that the Republicans will be coming up with their own candidate for
"fomenting" the riots and demonstrations. It already includes Antifa, of course, but is likely
to somehow also involve the Chinese, who will undoubtedly be seen as destroying American
democracy through the double whammy of a plague and race riots. Speaking at the White House,
National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien
warned about foreign incitement , including not only the Chinese, but also Iran and even
Zimbabwe. And, oh yes, Russia.
One thing is for sure, no matter who is ultimately held accountable, no one in the Congress
or White House will be taking the blame for anything.
The case of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is inevitably heading toward
its conclusion. While the presiding district judge, Emmet Sullivan , is trying to keep it
going, there's only so much he can do, chiefly because there's nobody left to prosecute the
case after the Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped it
last month .
In the latest developments, the District of Columbia appeals court set a hearing in the case
for tomorrow (June 12), while the DOJ's solicitor general himself, as well as five of his
deputies, urged the court to order the lower-court judge to accept the case dismissal.
"I cannot overstate how big of a deal this is," commented appellate attorney John Reeves,
former assistant Missouri attorney general, in a series of tweets on June
1 .
Personal involvement of the solicitor general "is highly unusual and rare," he said .
" Unusual " seems a fitting euphemism for the Flynn case, which has been filled with
contradictions, falsehoods, apparent blunders, extraordinary moves, and strange
coincidences.
The Epoch Times has so far counted 85 such instances.
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration and
former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, to
one count of lying to FBI agents during a Jan. 24, 2017, interview.
The FBI officially opened an investigation on Flynn on Aug. 16, 2016, based on a suspicion
that he "may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian
Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security."
What activity? The case was opened under a broader investigation into whether the Trump 2016
presidential campaign conspired with Russia to steal emails from the Democratic National
Committee and release them through Wikileaks.
The bureau learned from the Australian government that its then-ambassador to the UK,
Alexander Downer, spoke with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who "suggested" that the
campaign received "some kind of suggestion" that Russia could help it by anonymously releasing
some information damaging to Trump's opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The FBI didn't know what Papadopoulos actually said or what he was talking about.
Officially, this information was used by the FBI to comb through its databases for
information on people associated with the Trump campaign and open investigations on four
individuals supposedly linked to Russia.
Because Flynn's paid speaking engagements in years past included some for Russian companies
-- one for Kaspersky Lab and one for RT television in Moscow -- the FBI decided to open a
counterintelligence investigation on the retired three-star general.
But the FBI seemed to have trouble getting its story straight.
1. Comey
Contradiction
The FBI officially opened the four individual cases in mid-August 2016.
But former FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress that he was
briefed already "at the end of July that the FBI had opened counterintelligence investigations
of four individuals to see if there was a connection between any of those four and the Russian
effort."
2. Unlikely Target
Suspecting a man with patriotic bona fides of Flynn's caliber of having colluded with Russia
based on two speaking engagements seemed particularly unusual.
Flynn's command of military intelligence to aid American troops in combat has earned him
great praise.
"Mike Flynn's impact on the nation's War on Terror probably trumps any other single person,"
wrote then-Brig. Gen. John Mulholland in Flynn's
2007 performance review .
Mulholland went as far as calling Flynn "easily the best intelligence professional of any
service serving today."
Flynn was driven out of his post in 2014 after he repeatedly embarrassed President Barack
Obama by insisting, contrary to the administration's official stance, that a resurgence of
Islamic terrorism in the Middle East was imminent.
Two months after his resignation, the rise of ISIS proved him right.
3. A Name for the
Spotlight
The Russia probe was titled "Crossfire Hurricane" (CH), and Flynn was given the code name
"Crossfire Razor."
This was unusual, according to Marc Ruskin, a 27-year veteran of the FBI and an Epoch Times
contributor.
Rank-and-file agents would never pick a name like this, he told The Epoch Times in a
previous interview.
"They would mock it as being overly dramatic," he said.
4. Snooping During
Briefing
The day after opening the Flynn case, the FBI participated in a strategic intelligence
briefing given to Donald Trump and two of his advisers by the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
Because Flynn was to be present, the FBI took the extraordinary step of sending in
supervisory special agent Joe Pientka to collect intel on Flynn for the investigation. Pientka
was to assess Flynn's "overall mannerisms" and listen for "any kind of admission" that could be
used by the bureau, the DOJ's inspector general (IG) said in a Dec. 9 report on the CH
investigation ( pdf ).
The IG raised the question of whether snooping on officials the FBI is supposed to brief
could have a "chilling effect" on any such intelligence briefings in the future.
5.
Dossier Coincidence
The FBI directly targeted four Trump campaign aides, opening cases on three of them --
Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and Paul Manafort -- on Aug. 10, 2016. The IG never received an
explanation for why the Flynn case was opened later. Incidentally, Page and Manafort had
already been mentioned in the infamous Steele dossier since July 28, 2016. Flynn's name,
however, was only mentioned in the dossier report dated Aug. 10, 2016.
The dossier, which drummed up unsubstantiated allegations of a Trump–Russia
conspiracy, was being spread to the media, the FBI, the State Department, the DOJ, and Congress
by operatives funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
One of the CH case agents, Stephen Somma, happened to have a longstanding relationship with
Stephan Halper, a Cambridge professor who was also a longtime political operative and FBI
informant.
Somma and another agent met with Halper on Aug. 11, 2016, and learned that, in a stunning
coincidence, Halper was already in contact with Page, had known Manafort for years, and "had
been previously acquainted with Michael Flynn," the IG report said
The CH team "couldn't believe [their] luck," Somma told the IG.
7. Halper's Story
Halper was accused of spreading rumors, starting in late 2016, that Flynn had an affair with
a Russian woman while visiting the UK in 2014 for a dinner hosted by the Cambridge Intelligence
Seminar co-convened at the time by Halper.
An "established" FBI informant told the CH team that the woman jumped in a cab with Flynn
after the dinner and joined him for a train ride to London (
pdf ).
She said Halper was the one spreading the rumor to the media and the FBI, even though he
didn't actually attend the event. She unsuccessfully
sued Halper for defamation in May 2019.
Somehow, Steele also became privy to the rumor and
shared it with Adam Kramer , an aide to the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Kramer
testified to Congress that he was in regular contact with Steele between Nov. 28, 2016, and
early March 2017.
8. Unmasking
The names of Americans are normally masked -- that is, replaced with generic names -- in
foreign intelligence reports. Many senior government officials have the authority to ask for
names to be unmasked for various reasons, such as to understand the intelligence. There were
dozens of unmasking requests for reports related to Flynn, between Nov. 8, 2016, and Jan. 31,
2017 (
pdf ). The number of unmasking requests has been described as alarming by some
commentators, while others described it as routine.
9. Non-masking
There are also indications that Flynn's name was never masked in summaries or
transcripts of his calls with then-Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak
on Dec. 29, 2016, and in the following days. FBI leaders were distributing the documents to top
Obama officials. Even President Barack Obama himself was briefed on them on or before Jan. 5,
2017.
10. Who Briefed Obama?
Comey testified to Congress that it was then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
who briefed Obama on the Flynn–Kislyak calls (
pdf ). Clapper, however, denied this to Congress.
11. 'Unusual'
Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, memorialized a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting with
Obama, Comey, and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates . Rice wrote in an email to
herself that Obama asked Comey whether he should withhold any Russia-related information from
the incoming administration and from Flynn in particular.
"Potentially," Comey replied, adding that "the level of communication" between Flynn and
Kislyak was "unusual,"
she wrote . There's no indication Flynn was talking to Kislyak unusually often. He was at
the time responsible for laying the groundwork for Trump's foreign relations as president and
was frequently on the phone with foreign dignitaries.
12. Late Memo
Rice's memo itself is unusual. She emailed it to herself more than two weeks after the
meeting took place, on the day of Trump's inauguration.
13. Strzok Intervention
On Jan. 4, the FBI was already in the process of closing Flynn's case. But the bureau's
counterintelligence operations head at the time, Peter Strzok,
scrambled to keep it open , noting that the "7th floor," meaning the FBI's top leadership,
was involved.
14. McCabe–Comey Contradiction
Comey testified that he authorized the Flynn case "to be closed at the end of December,
beginning of January."
"I don't think a closure would have been soon," he said.
15. Shaky Theory
FBI documents and Comey's testimony indicate that the
bureau kept the Flynn case open solely based on a legal theory that he may have violated
the Logan Act, even though the DOJ made clear that such charges wouldn't pass muster in court
-- nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for a Logan Act violation and the government
last tried in 1852.
The law prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomacy on their own with countries
the United States is in dispute with. Not only have questions been raised as to whether the law
would pass today's constitutional scrutiny, which places greater emphasis on First Amendment
protections, but also there's no indication the law was conceived to apply to a
president-elect's incoming top adviser.
16. Call Leaks
In early January, information about Flynn's calls with Kislyak was leaked to then-Washington
Post reporter Adam Entous. He said there was a discussion at the paper about what to do with
the information, as it would have been expected of Flynn, given his position, to talk to
Kislyak (
pdf ). In the end, the paper
ran a column on Jan. 12 by David Ignatius speculating that Flynn may have violated the
Logan Act if he discussed fresh sanctions imposed on Russia during the calls.
Obama imposed the sanctions on Russian entities, including its intelligence services, on
Dec. 29, 2016. At the same time, he also expelled 35 Russian intelligence officers.
17.
Denial
The calls "had nothing whatsoever to do with the sanctions," incoming Vice President Mike
Pence told CBS News on Jan. 15, 2017, in an interview the network almost wholly dedicated to
questions about Russia.
This wasn't completely true.
Kislyak did bring up the issue of sanctions during the call, though Flynn didn't engage him
in a conversation on the topic.
Flynn raised the issue of the expulsions, which is technically a separate issue from
sanctions, though both were announced at the same time. He asked for "cool heads to prevail"
and for Russia to only respond reciprocally, as further escalation into a "tit for tat" could
lead to the countries shutting down each other's embassies, complicating future
diplomacy.
18. 'Blackmailable'
Yates said she wanted to inform Trump's White House about the Kislyak calls as Russia would
know that what Pence said wasn't true and could thus blackmail Flynn with the information,
according to an Aug. 15, 2017, FBI report from her interview
with the Mueller team.
According to Ruskin, this was hardly a blackmail situation, which ordinarily involves
serious compromising information, such as evidence of bribery or sexual misconduct.
Comey acknowledged to Congress in March 2017 that the idea that Flynn was compromised struck
him "as a bit of a reach."
19. Comey Blocked Information
Despite issues with Yates's argument, informing the White House may have indeed cleared up
the situation. However, Comey blocked it, saying it could have interfered with the
investigation of Flynn -- despite that it appears there was nothing for the bureau to
investigate. At that point, the DOJ already had disapproved of the Logan Act idea. In any case,
the probe was supposed to be about Russian collusion. The bureau could have closed it and
opened a new one on the Logan Act, if it indeed had had sufficient predication. But it never
opened such an investigation, the DOJ noted in its motion to dismiss Flynn's case.
20.
Another Comey–McCabe Contradiction
In the days before Jan. 24, 2017, top FBI officials were discussing plans to interview
Flynn. Comey said the point of the interview was to find out why Flynn didn't tell Pence that
sanctions were discussed during the call (even though Flynn wasn't actually the one talking
about sanctions).
"My judgment was we could not close the investigation of Mr. Flynn without asking him what
is the deal here. That was the purpose," Comey testified.
McCabe, however, told a different story when then-Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asked him, "Was
[Flynn] interviewed because the Vice President relied upon information from him in a national
interview?"
"No. I don't remember that being a motivating factor behind the interview," McCabe
said.
21. No Mention of Pence
During the interview, the agents didn't ask Flynn about what he did or didn't tell Pence --
an unusual approach if the point, as Comey said, was to find out why Flynn hadn't "been candid"
with Pence. The FBI, in fact, had no idea what Flynn did or didn't tell Pence.
22.
Slipped-In Warning
Agents regularly warn interviewees that lying to federal officers is a crime. Before the
Flynn interview, however, McCabe's special counsel Lisa Page emailed another FBI lawyer asking
how the warning should be given and whether there was a way "to just casually slip that
in."
23. No Warning
In the end, the agents never gave Flynn any such warning.
24. 'Get Him to Lie Get Him
Fired?'
The FBI officials agreed that the agents wouldn't show Flynn the transcripts of the calls.
If he said something that diverged from them, they would ask again, slipping in some words from
the transcript. If that didn't jog his memory, they were not to confront him about it.
On the day of the interview, then-FBI head of counterintelligence
Bill Priestap wrote a note saying he told other officials to "rethink" the approach.
"What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?" he wrote, noting, "We regularly show subjects evidence."
Apparently, his concerns were ignored.
25. Discouraging Having a Lawyer Present
On the day of the interview, McCabe spoke with Flynn on the phone to ask him for the
interview. McCabe said he told Flynn he wanted the interview done "as quickly, quietly, and
discreetly as possible." If Flynn wanted anybody to sit in, such as one of the White House
lawyers, the DOJ would have to be involved, McCabe told him.
According to Ruskin, that was "egregious" behavior akin to discouraging a subject of an
investigation from having a lawyer present for an interview.
26. No White House
Notice
An FBI interview of a president's national security adviser is a big deal. Normally, it
would warrant a back-and-forth between the White House and the bureau on the scope, content,
purpose, and other parameters. Most likely, multiple White House lawyers would sit in.
Comey, however, said in a public forum
that he just sent the agents in, taking advantage of the fact that it was "early enough" --
only four days after the inauguration.
27. No Notice Given to DOJ
According to Yates, Comey didn't consult the DOJ about his intention to interview Flynn,
even though the department would usually be involved in such decisions.
28. Not Quite a
Denial From Flynn
After the interview, in which Strzok and supervisory special agent Pientka extensively
questioned Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, Comey said that Flynn denied talking to
the ambassador about the sanctions. But the agents' notes indicate that though Flynn denied it
at first, he seemed unsure when the agents asked again.
"Not really. I don't remember. It wasn't, 'Don't do anything,'" he said, according to the
notes.
"I told the agents that 'tit-for-tat' is a phrase I use, which suggests that the topic of
sanctions could have been raised," he
said .
29. UN Vote Denial
Based on the agent's notes, Flynn did deny asking for Russia to delay a U.N. vote in Israeli
settlements. One of the call transcripts indicates he in fact made such a request.
Flynn told the agents he was calling multiple countries regarding the vote, but it was more
an exercise of how quickly he could get foreign officials on the phone since there was no way
the transition team could convince enough countries to actually change the outcome. Indeed, the
vote passed with only the United States abstaining.
30. No Indication of Deception
The agents came back with the impression "that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was
lying," according to Strzok.
Comey seemed on the fence.
"I don't know. I think there is an argument to be made that he lied. It is a close one," he
testified.
31. Flynn Knew They Knew
According to McCabe, Flynn expressed awareness before the interview that the FBI knew
exactly what he said during the Kislyak calls.
"You listen to everything they [Russian representatives] say," Flynn told him, according to
McCabe's notes from that day.
32. Belated Report
The FBI interview summary, form FD-302, is required to be completed within five days of the
interview. Flynn's, however, took more than two weeks.
33. Rewritten 302
Strzok texted Page on Feb. 10, 2017, he was "trying to not completely rewrite" the 302 "so
as to save [redacted] voice." The redacted name was most likely Pientka's.
34. Missing
Original
Flynn was ultimately provided two draft versions of the 302 -- one from Feb. 10, 2016, and
one from the day after. But based on Strzok's texts, there should have been at least two draft
versions produced on Feb. 10, 2016, or before.
In fact, Judge Sullivan said in a Dec. 17, 2018, minute order that the 302 "was drafted
immediately after Mr. Flynn's FBI interview." It's not clear what the judge was basing this
assertion on or what happened to the early draft.
Flynn's current attorney, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , later said she'd found a
witness who saw an earlier draft and that it said "that Flynn was honest with the agents
and did not lie."
35. No Reinterview
It is common that when the FBI has questions after an interview about the candor of the
subject, it would question the person again. But in this case, the FBI showed no interest in
doing so.
36. Still Investigating What?
After the interview, Comey promptly agreed to Yates informing the White House about the call
transcripts. Flynn was fired two weeks later. But, somehow, the investigation was still not
over.
Comey said in his March 2, 2017, testimony that the bureau wasn't investigating any possible
Logan Act violation by Flynn and wouldn't do so unless the DOJ directed it.
But he said the investigation was "obviously" still ongoing and "criminal in nature."
McCabe said that "even following the interview on the 24th, we had a lot of work left to do
in that investigation."
By mid-February, the status of the probe wouldn't have "changed materially" in his belief,
he said.
"Like we were pursuing phone records and toll records at that time," he said. "There were
all kinds of really very basic foundational investigative activity that had to take place and
we were committed to getting that done."
It's unclear what the point of the investigation was.
37. FARA Papers
Around Christmas 2016, Flynn found in the office of his defunct consultancy, Flynn Intel
Group (FIG), a letter from the DOJ telling him he may need to file foreign lobbying disclosures
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
The DOJ's National Security Division (NSD) wanted to know about a job FIG did earlier that
year for Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin.
It should have been a routine procedure. Washington lobbyists commonly flunk FARA rules and
the NSD usually just asks them to register retrospectively because FARA cases are difficult to
prosecute. Flynn hired a team from Covington and Burling led by Robert Kelner, a
"never-Trumper" and an expert on FARA, to prepare the paperwork.
This time, the NSD was unusually eager. Heather Hunt, then-FARA unit chief herself, was
repeatedly prompting the lawyers to expeditiously file the papers.
Comey's leaking the content of this and other memos to the media served as a catalyst for
then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing former FBI head Robert Mueller as a
special counsel to take over the CH probe.
39. Rosenstein's Scope Memo Still Alludes to
Logan Act
Even though Comey said in March 2017 that the FBI wasn't investigating Flynn for a Logan Act
violation, Mueller received in August 2017 a mandate from Rosenstein ( pdf
) to probe whether Flynn "committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian
government officials during the period of the Trump transition." That appears to be an allusion
to the Logan Act.
Rosenstein testified
to Congress that he simply put in the scope of Mueller's mandate whatever the CH team was
investigating at the time.
The scope memo also tasked Mueller with probing whether Flynn lied to the FBI during the
interview, whether he failed to report foreign contacts or income on his national security
disclosure forms, and whether the Turkey job by his firm meant that he "committed a crime or
crimes by acting as an unregistered agent for the government of Turkey."
40. Lawyers
Delay Informing Flynn?
By mid-August 2017, Covington learned that prosecutors were looking at Flynn's FARA filings.
But the lawyers didn't inform Flynn until weeks later, according to his current lawyer,
Powell.
41. Conflict of Interest
Convington faced a conflict of interest in Flynn's case, because it was in their interest to
say any problems with the FARA papers were Flynn's fault, while it was in Flynn's interest to
say the lawyers were responsible.
Covington and the Mueller team agreed the firm can continue to represent Flynn if they tell
him about the conflict and he consents to it. Powell said the conflict was so serious bar rules
required the lawyers to withdraw.
42. Lawyers Don't Take Responsibility
In Flynn's situation, it would have been the ethical thing to do for the lawyers to take
responsibility for any problems with the FARA papers, according to Powell. But they didn't do
that.
43. Lawyers Express Apprehension About Being Targeted Themselves
The Covington lawyers on several occasions expressed concern that Mueller may target them
with a crime-fraud order, a measure that allows prosecutors to break through the
attorney-client privilege if they get a judge to agree that the client was conferring with
lawyers to further a crime or some misconduct. The lawyers were aware Mueller's team had
already used the order against Manafort.
Facing a crime-fraud order would cause bad publicity for Covington, Powell noted. Leading
Flynn into the plea allowed the firm to avoid it.
44. Perilous Interviews
In early November 2016, Mueller prosecutors, led by Brandon Van Grack, told Covington that
Flynn was facing charges for lying to the FBI and lying on the FARA papers. They asked for
Flynn's cooperation with the broader Russia probe, particularly regarding any communications he
or other Trump people had with foreign officials.
Van Grack wanted Flynn to sit down for a series of interviews. He offered Flynn limited
immunity, but acknowledged that Flynn could still be charged for lying during the
interviews.
The lawyers noted that this could have been dangerous for Flynn, even if he was completely
honest.
"To ask someone about meetings and calls during an incredibly busy period of his life as an
evaluation of candor is not a particularly attractive option," Kelner told the prosecutors
during a conference call (
pdf ).
Yet ultimately the Covington lawyers agreed to make Flynn available for the
questioning.
45. Belated Consent
Covington only asked Flynn for consent with their conflict of interest in writing on Nov.
19, 2017, after Flynn had already been through two days of interviews with the
prosecutors.
46. Wrong Standard
The consent request, sent via email, cited the wrong bar rule for handling of conflicts. The
correct rule "creates a much lower threshold at which a lawyer must bow out," Powell said in a
court filing.
47. Innocent but Guilty
The Covington lawyers repeatedly told the prosecutors that they didn't think Flynn was
guilty of a felony. They were also told that Strzok and Pientka "saw no indication of
deception" on Flynn's part and had the impression after the interview that he wasn't lying or
didn't think he was lying. But the lawyers still convinced Flynn that he should plead guilty to
the felony charge.
48. Threat to Son
According to Flynn's declaration, the Covington lawyers told him that if he didn't plead,
the prosecutors would charge his son (who had a four-month-old baby at the time) with a FARA
violation, because the son worked for Flynn's firm and was involved in the Turkey project. If
he did plead, however, his son "would be left in peace," Flynn said.
The pressure campaign, it seems, was also reflected in media leaks.
"If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son it
could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences,"
NBC News reported on Nov. 5, 2017, referring to "sources familiar with the
investigation."
"To twist the father's arm with regard to his child is a pretty low thing to do," Ruskin
commented.
49. 302 Not Shared
The prosecutors refused to share with Flynn the 302 from his January interview until shortly
before he agreed to plead. Also, they only shared the final version of the report, which was
significantly different from its previous drafts, Flynn later learned.
50. Strzok Texts
Understatement
Shortly before Flynn signed his plea, the prosecutors disclosed to his lawyers that one of
the agents who interviewed Flynn (Strzok) was being investigated by the IG for potential
misconduct. They also disclosed that the agent expressed in electronic communications "a
preference for one of the candidates for President."
This was far from covering the bombshell the Strzok texts actually were, Powell noted.
Strzok not only voiced preference for Clinton, but cursed at and repeatedly derided Trump.
In one 2016 text, he argued that the FBI needed to take action akin to an "insurance policy" in
case Trump won. Strzok later said he was referring to proceeding in the CH probe more
aggressively out of a worry that Trump may interfere with it if elected.
51. Lawyers
Never Told Flynn?
Flynn said the Convington lawyers never told him that the FBI agents didn't think he lied.
Even after he specifically asked about the agents' impression, the lawyers didn't disclose the
information and instead told him that "the agents stood by their statement."
"I then understood them to be telling me that the FBI agents believed that I had lied,"
Flynn said, explaining that had he known, he wouldn't have signed the plea.
52. Statement
of Offense Inaccurate
As part of his statement of offense, Flynn affirmed that FIG's FARA papers contained three
false statements and one omission. Yet, on all four points the statement of offense was
inaccurate, Powell demonstrated (
pdf ).
"The prosecutors concocted the alleged 'false statements' by their own misrepresentations,
deceit, and omissions," she said in a court filing (
pdf ).
The FARA papers were "substantially correct" and any deficiencies were the fault of
Covington, she said.
53. Lawyers Knew
In an internal email three days before Flynn signed his plea, one of the Covington lawyers
pointed out that some of the "false statements" attributed to Flynn in the statement of offense
regarding the FARA filings were "contradicted by the caveats or qualifications in the
filing."
It seems the lawyers failed to correct the issue, since the statement of offense remained
inaccurate. They also never informed Flynn of the issue, according to Powell.
54. Judge
Recusal
Flynn entered his plea on Dec. 1, 2017. Shortly after, the judge who accepted the plea,
Rudolph Contreras, recused himself from the case. The apparent but undisclosed reason was
likely his personal relationship with Strzok.
55. Strzok Texts Media Coincidence
While the IG had found Strzok's texts already in June 2017, their first disclosure in the
media came from The Washington Post the day after Flynn entered his guilty plea. Powell noted
how convenient the timing was for the prosecutors.
56. Side Deal
The prosecutors conveyed to Covington an "unofficial understanding" that they were
"unlikely" to charge Flynn's son in light of Flynn's agreement to continue to cooperate with
the Mueller probe, one of the lawyers said in an internal email.
Such an under-the-table deal is "unethical," Ruskin said.
57. Avoiding Giglio
Disclosure
Another internal Covington email suggests the prosecutors intentionally kept the deal
regarding Flynn's son unofficial to make future prosecutions easier.
"The government took pains not to give a promise to MTF [Michael T. Flynn] regarding Michael
[Flynn] Jr., so as to limit how much of a 'benefit' it would have to disclose as part of its
Giglio disclosures to any defendant against whom MTF may one day testify," the email reads.
"Giglio" refers to a 1972 Supreme Court opinion that requires prosecutors to disclose to the
defense that a witness used by the prosecutors has been promised an escape from prosecution in
exchange for cooperation.
58. Questionable Disclosures
After the case was assigned to Judge Sullivan, he entered an order for the DOJ to give Flynn
all exculpatory information it had, as the judge does in all cases.
The prosecutors, however, weren't prompt in revealing the information. The Strzok texts, for
instance, were only provided to Flynn after they were released publicly.
59. Business
Partner Coincidence
One day before Flynn's sentencing hearing, his former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian, was
charged with a failure to register as a foreign agent in relation to FIG's Turkey job.
Powell called it a "shot across the bow" which the Mueller team wanted to "leverage" against
Flynn.
"Mr. Van Grack used the possibility of indicting Flynn in the Rafiekian case at the
sentencing hearing to raise the specter of all the threats he had made to secure the plea a
year earlier -- including the indictment of Mr. Flynn's son," she said in a court filing (
pdf ).
60. Judge Makes False Accusations, Backtracks
During a Dec. 18, 2018, sentencing hearing, Sullivan questioned the prosecutors about
whether they considered charging Flynn with treason.
"Arguably, you sold your country out," he told Flynn, saying that he acted as an agent of
Turkey while in the White House.
That was wrong on multiple levels. Not only does treason not apply to unregistered lobbying,
but the Turkey job had virtually no impact on American interests. It prepared a plan to lobby
for the extradition of an Islamic cleric, Fethullah Gülen, who lives in exile in the
United States, and whom Ankara blamed for instigating a coup attempt in 2016. Almost none of
the plan materialized. Most importantly, Flynn shuttered his firm shortly after the election to
comply with Trump's promise of no lobbyists in his administration.
Sullivan corrected himself later in the hearing, but many media outlets still put his
original remarks in headlines.
61. MSNBC Coincidence
While Sullivan's question about treason and his gaffe about the Turkey job seemed to come
out of left field, they mirrored MSNBC talking points from days prior.
The day before Flynn's sentencing hearing, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow claimed Flynn and Rafiekian "disguised" the
origins of payments for the Turkey job so they could "secretly work in the interest of a
foreign country without anybody knowing it while they were also working high-level jobs in
intelligence inside the U.S. government."
"Flynn really thought he could be a national security adviser, the national security adviser
in the White House, and a secret foreign agent at the same time," Maddow said .
Three days before Flynn's sentencing hearing, Malcolm Nance, a counterterrorism commentator,
said on MSNBC that Flynn "may have been one step away from treason" and "pulled back by
cooperating" with Mueller.
62. Judge Fails to Satisfy Plea Rules
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state in Rule 11 that "before entering judgment on a
guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea."
As such, Sullivan was required to check that Flynn's alleged lies to the FBI were
"material," meaning relevant enough to potentially affect an FBI investigation.
But the judge acknowledged during the sentencing hearing that he hadn't done so.
"It probably won't surprise you that I had many, many, many more questions. such as, you
know, how the government's investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the
criminality? Things like that," he said at the conclusion of the hearing.
There's no indication Sullivan has asked those questions since.
63. Unacceptable
Plea
Not only could Sullivan not have accepted Flynn's plea before determining materiality,
there's evidence he was in fact required to refuse it.
Rule 11 requires the court to "determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from
force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement)."
In Flynn's case, there actually was a threat and a promise left out of the deal -- the
"unofficial understanding" that his son was "unlikely" to be charged if Flynn
cooperated.
64. Lawyers Insisted Flynn 'Stay on the Path'
Before the sentencing hearing, the Covington lawyers told Flynn to "stay on the path" and to
refuse if Sullivan offered him to take his plea back, Flynn said in his court declaration.
"If the judge offers you a chance to withdraw your plea, he is giving you the rope to hang
yourself. Don't do it," the lawyers said, according to Powell.
65. Unprepared
Flynn said the lawyers only prepared him for a "simple hearing" and not for the extended
questioning Sullivan engaged in.
"I was not prepared for this court's plea colloquy, much less to decide, on the spot,
whether I should withdraw my plea, consult with independent counsel, or continue to follow my
existing lawyers' advice," he said.
In the end, he affirmed his plea during the hearing.
66. Prosecutors Asked for False
Testimony?
Flynn was expected to testify against Rafiekian in 2019, but when the moment was to come,
prosecutors asked him to say that he signed FIG's FARA papers knowing there were lies in them.
Flynn, who had already fired Convington and hired Powell by that point, refused. He said he
only acknowledged in hindsight that the FARA papers were inaccurate, but didn't know it at the
time.
67. Prosecutors Knew?
Powell has argued that the prosecutors knew they were asking for a false testimony. She
filed with the court a draft of Flynn's statement of offense, which shows that the words "FLYNN
then and there knew" (pertaining to the FARA registration) were cut from the final version.
Moreover, Powell submitted emails that indicate the words were cut by the prosecutors
themselves after the Covington lawyers raised some objections to the draft.
68.
Retaliation?
Flynn's refusal to say what prosecutors wanted angered Van Grack, contemporaneous notes show
(
pdf ). Shortly after, prosecutors tried to label Flynn as a co-conspirator in the Rafiekian
case and put Flynn's son on the list of witnesses for the prosecution. According to Powell,
this was retaliation for Flynn's refusal to lie.
69. Rafiekian Case Collapses
Prosecutors in the Rafiekian case tried to argue that anybody who does something political
at the request of a foreign official and fails to disclose it to the DOJ is an "agent of a
foreign government" and can be put in prison for up to 10 years.
The presiding judge, Anthony Trenga, rejected the theory, ruling that an "agent" -- as used
in that context -- needs to have a tighter relationship with the foreign government, a
relationship that includes "the power of the principal to give directions and the duty of the
agent to obey those directions."
Starting in August, Powell started to bombard the prosecutors with demands for exculpatory
evidence she was convinced the DOJ possessed. But the prosecutors repeatedly claimed the
government already provided all it had and had no more.
The main issue was, Powell noted, that the DOJ had a very narrow view of what is
exculpatory.
"If something appears on its face to be favorable to the defense the government will claim
it was said 'with a wink and a nod,' and therefore it showed the defendant's guilt after all,"
she complained in an Aug. 30, 2019, filing (
pdf ).
As it later turned out, the FBI was sitting on a number of documents favorable to the
defense.
71. Contradicting Notes
When Flynn finally obtained the hand-written notes Strzok and Pientka took during the
interview, it turned out they didn't quite match the final 302.
The 302, for instance, says that Flynn remembered making four to five phone calls to Kislyak
on Dec. 29, 2016. Both sets of notes indicate that Flynn didn't remember that.
Also, the 302 says that Flynn denied that Kislyak got back to him with the Russian response
a few days later. There's no mention of a Russian response in the notes.
72. Notes
Mixup
It took the prosecutors until November 2019 to find out and tell Flynn that the notes they
said belonged to Strzok were actually Pientka's and vice versa.
73. No Date, Name
The notes mixup wasn't that easy to spot because neither set of notes was signed or dated,
even though they should have been, according to Powell.
74. Harsher Sentence
Since his sentencing hearing, Flynn was expected to receive a light sentence, possibly
probation. In January 2020, however, the prosecutors indicated that Flynn should be treated
more harshly because he reneged on his promise to cooperate on the Rafiekian case.
This was part of the retaliation for Flynn's refusal to lie for the prosecutors, according
to Powell.
Shortly after that, Flynn asked the court to let him withdraw his plea.
Any limitation the court puts on how the attorney-client information can be used shouldn't
"preclude the government from prosecuting the defendant for perjury if any information that he
provided to counsel were proof of perjury in this proceeding," they said.
It's not clear what specifically they were referring to.
76. Thousands More
Documents
In April, Covington told Flynn they
found thousands more documents related to his case that they failed to give to Powell due
to "an unintentional miscommunication involving the firm's information technology
personnel."
77. Van Grack Out
On May 7, 2020, Van Grack withdrew from Flynn's case as well as others. The reason is not
clear.
The same day, the DOJ moved to withdraw the Flynn case.
78. Judge Delays
A government motion to withdraw a case usually marks the end of the case. The court still
needs to accept the motion, but there's not much it can do, since there's nobody left to
prosecute the case.
Sullivan, however, didn't accept it.
79. Appointing Amicus
On May 13, 2020, Sullivan appointed former federal Judge John Gleeson as an amicus curiae
(friend of court) "to present arguments in opposition to the government's Motion to Dismiss" as
well as to "address" whether the court should make the defense explain why "Flynn should not be
held in criminal contempt for perjury."
This was an unusual move. Amici are normally only appointed in civil or higher court cases.
Powell has said Sullivan doesn't have authority to do so.
80. Another Washington Post
Coincidence
Just two days earlier, Gleeson co-authored an op-ed in The Washington Post where he accused
the DOJ of "impropriety," "corruption," and "improper political influence" for dropping the
Flynn case.
81. More Delays
On May 19, 2020, Sullivan issued a scheduling order that set an oral argument for July 16,
when third parties invited by the judge would get a chance to voice their opinions. As such,
the judge
set to prolong the case for about two more months and possibly beyond.
In a rare move , the appeals court
ordered Sullivan to respond to Flynn's petition within 10 days. Usually, the court would
appoint an amicus curiae to argue the case on behalf of the judge. Sometimes, the court would
invite the judge to respond. Ordering a response is "very rare," Reeves commented.
Wilkinson has in the past represented major corporations such as Pfizer, Microsoft, and
Phillip Morris, as well as Hillary Clinton aides during the FBI's investigation of Clinton's
use of a private email server. She also assisted then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in
preparing his 2018 defense against a sexual assault allegation.
Wilkinson is married to CNN analyst David Gregory, the former host of the NBC News' "Meet
the Press."
84. DOJ Brings Big Guns
In another unusual move, the DOJ's Solicitor General and five of his deputies responded to
the appeals court in support of Flynn's petition. The Solicitor General usually argues cases on
behalf of the DOJ before the Supreme Court. His personal involvement in an appeals court
petition "is highly unusual and rare," Reeves said.
"For non-lawyers, a ten day notice for oral argument may seem like a long time, but it
isn't. It's an increidibly [sic] short amount of time," he said, noting that a call for a
hearing "shows that the DC Circuit is gravely concerned about this matter."
General Flynn needs to sue for all the money he spent defending himself for this scam. Yet
we had liar Adam Schiff lie daily nothing happens to that loser.
This is another reason I dislike Obama so much; he has deceived the American public with
his alleged good intentions to only want to take more rights away from us citizens!
Retired federal judge John Gleeson was recently appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet
Sullivan to argue against dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn and to advise him on whether the court should substitute its own charge of charge
for Flynn for now claiming innocence.
I have been highly critical of Sullivan's orders and particularly the importation of third
parties to make arguments that neither party supports in a criminal case.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.390.0_en.html#goog_1769897594
NOW PLAYING
Flynn asks appeals court to toss criminal charges
Now Gleeson has filed a brief that confirms the worst fears that many of us had about his
appointment. Gleeson assails what he called "a trumped-up accusation of government misconduct."
The ultimate position advocated in Gleeson's arguments would be a nightmare for criminal
defendants, criminal defense counsel and civil libertarians. Indeed, as discussed below,
Gleeson was previously reversed as a judge for usurping the authority of prosecutors.
Gleeson actually makes the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" look like an ACLU lawyer.
After all she just called for "Sentence First–Verdict Afterward" Gleeson is dispensing
with any need for verdict on perjury, just the sentence. However, since these arguments are
viewed as inimical to the Trump Administration,
many seem blind to the chilling implications .
In his
82-page filing Gleeson notably rejects the idea of a perjury charge, which I previously
criticized as a dangerous and ridiculous suggestion despite the support from many legal
analysts. He notes that such a move would be "irregular" and
"I respectfully suggest that the best response to Flynn's perjury is not to respond in
kind. Ordering a defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt based on a
perjurious effort to withdraw a guilty plea is not what judges typically do. To help restore
confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, the Court should return regularity to
that process."
This seems a carefully crafted way of saying that the many calls for a perjury charge are as
out of line with prior cases as what these same critics allege was done by the Justice
Department.
However, Gleeson is not striking an independent or principled position. Rather, he is
suggesting that the Court simply treat Flynn as a perjurer, punish him as a perjurer, but not
give him a trial as a perjurer. Thus, he is advocating that the court "should take Flynn's
perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted
guilty."
Thus, according to Gleeson, the Court should first sentence a defendant on a crime that the
prosecutors no longer believe occurred in a case that prosecutors believe (and many of us have
argued) was marred by their own misconduct. He would then punish the defendant further by
treating his support for dismissal and claims of coercion as perjury. That according to former
judge Gleeson is a return to "regularity." I have been a criminal defense attorney for decades
and I have never even heard of anything like that. It is not "regular." It is ridiculous.
Gleeson himself came in for criticism in the filing by Flynn's counsel who note that the
former judge appointed by Sullivan not only publicly advocated against Flynn's position but as
a judge was chastised by the Second Circuit for misusing his position to grandstand in a case
involving a deferred prosecution agreement. The defense cited HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 136 (2d
Cir. 2017) where the Second Circuit reversed Gleeson for exaggerating his role in a way
that "would be to turn the presumption of regularity on its head."
The similarities to the present case are notable, including arguments that Gleeson intruded
upon prosecutorial discretion. The Second Circuit held:
"By sua sponte invoking its supervisory power at the outset of this case to oversee the
government's entry into and implementation of the DPA, the district court impermissibly
encroached on the Executive's constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed." U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the Department of Justice is entitled to a presumption of regularity -- that is, a
presumption that it is lawfully discharging its duties. Though that presumption can of course
be rebutted in such a way that warrants judicial intervention, it cannot be preemptively
discarded based on the mere theoretical possibility of misconduct. Absent unusual
circumstances not present here, a district court's role vis-à-vis a DPA is limited to
arraigning the defendant, granting a speedy trial waiver if the DPA does not represent an
improper attempt to circumvent the speedy trial clock, and adjudicating motions or disputes
as they arise."
The Court acknowledged that there may be cases warranting great judicial involvement.
However, the court found that Gleeson had acted on his own presumptions and not evidence. It
also reaffirmed that there is a presumption in favor of the prosecution that he
ignored:
"The district court justified its concededly "novel" exercise of supervisory power in this
context by observing that "it is easy to imagine circumstances in which a deferred
prosecution agreement, or the implementation of such an agreement, so transgresses the bounds
of lawfulness or propriety as to warrant judicial intervention to protect the integrity of
the Court." HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6. We agree that it is not difficult to
imagine such circumstances. But the problem with this reasoning is that it runs headlong into
the presumption of regularity that federal courts are obliged to ascribe to prosecutorial
conduct and decisionmaking. That presumption is rooted in the principles that undergird our
constitutional structure. In particular, "because the United States Attorneys are charged
with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, there is a `presumption of regularity
support[ing] their prosecutorial decisions and, in the absence of clear evidence to the
contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.'" United
States v. Sanchez, 517
F.3d 651 , 671 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v.
Armstrong, 517 U.S.
456 , 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)). In resting its exercise of
supervisory authority on hypothesized scenarios of egregious misconduct, the district court
turned this presumption on its head. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6
("[C]onsider a situation where the current monitor needs to be replaced. What if the
replacement's only qualification for the position is that he or she is an intimate
acquaintance of the prosecutor proposing the appointment?" (citation omitted)).
Rather than
presume "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary" that the prosecutors administering
the DPA were "properly discharg[ing] their official duties," the district court invoked its
supervisory power -- and encroached on the Executive's prerogative -- based on the mere
theoretical possibility that the prosecutors might one day abdicate those duties. Sanchez,
517 F.3d at 671 (internal quotation mark omitted)."
Gleeson can now argue that he found the case that he did not establish as a judge. However,
his brief is filled with sweeping presumptions against the motivations and analysis of the
Justice Department, even though many outsiders agree with that analysis. The Flynn case is
based on statements that even the FBI agents reportedly did not believe were intentional lies.
Moreover, there is a clear basis to question the materiality element to the criminal charge.
People can disagree reasonably on both points, but that is the point. The Justice Department
has decided that it agrees that the case is flawed in line with the analysis of various
experts. The court might not agree with that interpretation and many other experts may
vehemently oppose it. However, it is a legitimate legal argument that cannot be substituted by
the Court for its own preferences.
None of this seems to penetrate the analysis of Gleeson who shows the same aggrandizement of
judicial authority that got him reversed as a judge. He argues for a court potentially sending
someone to jail when the prosecutors no longer believe he is guilty of a crime and believe that
he was the victim of bias and abuse.
Imagine what that would portend for future criminal defendants who want to argue coercion
and abuse. Their counsel would have to warn them that they could be sent to prison for a longer
period for perjury even if the prosecutors agree with them. Moreover, Gleeson believes that
they should not even be afforded a trial as perjurers, just treated as perjurers.
That is being claimed in the name of "regularity." Unfortunately, such analysis has become
all too regular in this age of rage.
Anyone saying that this is class war, is simply hiding behind their white privilege and
denying the essential RACISM of the United States. That's the corporate meme. And it's
probably going to work.
Problem here that the George Floyd protestors/rioters are a happy counter-cultural mix of
SJW, young blacks and young whites – impossible to portray them as the white power
KKK
In fact the RACISM shield doesn't work. The ZioGlob are left exposed, and in my opinion
they're scared by these protests. If they crack down with the national Guard or the military
it only makes the situation worse. Things polarize, with them being further identified as a
privileged exploitative elite.
Problem here that the George Floyd protestors/rioters are a happy counter-cultural mix
of SJW, young blacks and young whites – impossible to portray them as the white power
KKK.
Same way that the Polish communist government couldn't effectively attack the Solidarity
worker's uprising. Government propaganda was designed to attack capitalists, exploiters of
the working class etc. which didn't make any sense against shipyard workers.
Thanks for that link, a very interesting and detailed article. It seems Haftar is an
erratic and unreliable character and the LNA's major foreign allies/sponsors, including
Russia, make no secret of the fact that they basically consider him a temporary "necessary
evil" until a more solid and reliable leader can be found.
" .a white president and a black president both signed off on drone attacks "
Who was this "black president"? I'm only aware of Nobel Peace Prize "winner", destroyer of
Libya, sponsor of jihadis in Syria and Nazis in Ukraine, genocidaire of Yemenis, and mass
murderer extraordinaire Barack Hussein Obama, who, if being the child of a black father makes
him "half-black", is, from being the child of a white mother, equally "half-white".
Problem here that the George Floyd protestors/rioters are a happy counter-cultural mix
of SJW, young blacks and young whites – impossible to portray them as the white power
KKK.
Same way that the Polish communist government couldn't effectively attack the Solidarity
worker's uprising. Government propaganda was designed to attack capitalists, exploiters of
the working class etc. which didn't make any sense against shipyard workers.
In many way this is just a wishful thinking. Saker's hyperbolic rhetoric is just cheap
propaganda and does not help to decifer the issues the USA faces!
Looks like Clinton wing of Dems is willing to burn their own house to get rid of Trump. "If I
had to guess, I'd say it's the neoliberal, CIA-Obama faction vs. the Trump-Military faction,
(Pompeo et al)" But why? Why Obamagate is picking up steam? Looks Barry CIA Obama is still a
player. Is he also a reason we have senile Biden is the candidate for President on the Dem side?
Are we seeing the power of a CIA community organizer, color-revolutionary pulling strings across
multiple strata of society?
The current riots create pressure of Trump and attempt are made to use them as the third act
of anti-Trump revolution but this clearly is nor a civil war. Like other protests before it
(Civil rights marches, anti-Vietnam and Iraq wars, Occupy) little to no substantive changes have
been introduced insofar as reining in of the war machine, the pursuit of social and economic
justice (universal free education and health care, equal employment and housing opportunities,
scaling down of the MIC and the Prison Industrial Complex, degrade Israel and Saudi lobbies,
etc.
They are not about any of these because they encompass all of these issues, and more.
It is important to always keep in mind the distinction between the concepts of " cause " and
"pretext". And while it is true that all the factors listed above are real (at least to some
degree, and without looking at the distinction between cause and effect), none of them are the
true cause of what we are witnessing. At most, the above are pretexts, triggers if you want,
but the real cause of what is taking place today is the systemic collapse of the US
society.
The next thing which we must also keep in mind is that evidence of correlation is not
evidence of causality . Take, for example, this article from CNN entitled "US
black-white inequality in 6 stark charts" which completely conflates the two concepts and
which includes the following sentence (stress added) " Those disparities exist because of a
long history of policies that excluded and exploited black Americans, said Valerie Wilson,
director of the program on race, ethnicity and the economy at the Economic Policy Institute, a
left-leaning group. " The word "because" clearly point to a causality, yet absolutely nothing
in the article or data support this. The US media is chock-full of such conflations of
correlation and causality, yet it is rarely denounced.
For a society, any society, to function a number of factors that make up the social contract
need to be present. The exact list that make up these factors will depend on each individual
country, but they would typically include some kind of social consensus, the acceptance by most
people of the legitimacy of the government and its institutions, often a unifying ideology or,
at least, common values, the presence of a stable middle-class, the reasonable hope for a
functioning "social life", educational institutions etc. Finally, and cynically, it always
helps the ruling elites if they can provide enough circuses (TV) and bread (food) to most
citizens. This is even true of so-called authoritarian/totalitarian societies which, contrary
to the liberal myth, typically do enjoy the support of a large segment of the population (if
only because these regimes are often more capable of providing for the basic needs of
society).
Right now, I would argue that the US government has almost completely lost its ability to
deliver any of those factors, or act to repair the broken social contract. In fact, what we can
observe is the exact opposite: the US society is highly divided, as is the US ruling class
(which is even more important). Not only that, but ever since the election of Trump, all the
vociferous Trump-haters have been undermining the legitimacy not only of Trump himself, but of
the political system which made his election possible. I have been saying that for years: by
saying "not my President" the Trump-haters have de-legitimized not only Trump personally, but
also de-legitimized the Executive branch as such.
This is an absolutely amazing phenomenon: while for almost four years Trump has been
destroying the US Empire externally, Trump-haters spent the same four years destroying the US
from the inside! If we look past the (largely fictional) differences between the Republicrats
and the Demolicans we can see that they operate like a demolition tag-team of sorts and while
they hate each other with a passion, they both contribute to bringing down both the Empire
and the United States. For anybody who has studied dialectics this would be very predictable
but, alas, dialectics are not taught anymore, hence the stunned "deer in the headlights" look
on the faces of most people today.
Finally, it is pretty clear that for all its disclaimers about supporting only the "peaceful
protestors" and its condemnation of the "out of town looters", most of the US media (as well as
the alt media) is completely unable to give a moral/ethical evaluation of what is taking place.
What I mean by this is the following:
And this ain't nothing. Nothing. Not compared to 1967-68.
But you young people don't know nothing. Especially about history. So, no surprise
there.
Si1ver1ock says: Show
Comment
June 5, 2020 at 3:14 am GMT • 100 Words If I had to guess, I'd say it's the
neoliberal, CIA-Obama faction vs the Trump-Military faction, (Pompeo et al)
This came to a head just as Obama-gate was picking up steam. Obama is still a player. He
is the reason we have Biden for President on the Dem side, for example.
My guess is that you are seeing the power of a CIA community organizer,
color-revolutionary, Jedi psyop master, pulling strings across multiple strata of
society.
Trump and Obama don't like each other for some reason.
Begun? It's been in process for many decades. It might have begun in the early 20th
century. What's new here? Focusing on recent times, jobs disappeared in the 70's. Inflation
exploded at the same time. Negro antagonism began in the 60's. Replacement of the white
population accelerated in 1965 and continued relentlessly to the current moment.
We are seeing the looting phase of the business known as the United States of America.
Refer to an informative scene from the movie Goodfellas. The criminals got control of a
business, looted it into bankruptcy and burned the place down. Except in this case there
are no Italians involved. And you know who replaces them in our real life experience.
Espinoza says: Show
Comment
June 5, 2020 at 6:44 am GMT It's controlled demolition. First unjustified lockdown.
Then unjustified race riots. The deep state is intent on destroying Trump.
If US is divided into mutually hostile territories, guess where the majority will go.
That is right. They will go to white dominated areas as they do now to white dominated
neighborhoods.
Can no one stop the deep state?
Brewer says: Show Comment
June 5, 2020 at 7:17 am GMT • 100 Words Seen it all before. How short do memories
have to be to forget Kent State, Rodney King, the Civil Rights protests of the sixties,
Harlem riot of 1964, the Watts riot of 1965 et al ?
America is and will remain a deeply disturbed society given that their entire
philosophy, lifestyle and Politics is based on consumerism. Winners (no matter how
unethical) are heroes, losers (no matter how unjustly) are despised.
America will bump and grind on through bankruptcy, both morally and economically. It is
the Judaic way.
Simple fact is that most Americans are ignorant of History and are therefore condemned
to go on repeating the past.
Powell on Sunday aimed a broad critique at Trump's approach to the military, a foreign policy
he said was causing "disdain" abroad, and a president he portrayed as trying to amass
excessive power.
"We have a Constitution and we have to follow the Constitution, and the president has
drifted away from it," Powell said. Trump also, he said, "lies about things."
Trump responded swiftly on Twitter, mocking Powell and calling the retired four-star
general "a real stiff" who got the U.S. into wars after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
on the U.S.
Colin Powell, a real stiff who was very responsible for getting us into the disastrous
Middle East Wars, just announced he will be voting for another stiff, Sleepy Joe Biden.
Didn't Powell say that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction?" They didn't, but off we went
to WAR!
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2020
Credit when credit is due, Trump is completely right when he says Powell is an complete
hack and fraud who helped scam the US people into the Iraq war. Years after his UN appearance
Powell's own chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson, admitted that he and Powell knew that the fix
was in to attack Iraq and the information they were presenting to the UN was falsified, i.e.
they knowingly lied to the UN to start a war, a war crime (was of aggression)! Rather than do
the honourable thing and resign in protest and go public with the truth they stayed quite and
obey their illegal orders, presumably reasoning that a competently managed crime would be
less damaging then an incompetently managed crime. As it turns out though, Powell was an
utterly incompetent Secretary of State who was outmaneuvered at every stage of the conflict
by the mad dog crazies in the administration that he thought he was controlling. in the end,
all Powell's shameful behaviour accomplished was to destroy his honour and leave him forever
known as a war criminal (even if the UN is too cowardly to charge him as such). So, seeing
Powell and the lamestream media try to croon about him as some sort of moral authority is
laughable and Trump is right to rub all of Powell's crimes right in his face.
Not to forget (as a Vietnam Vet, I can't) that Maj. Colin Powell - after a cursory
investigation into the massacre at My Lai - drafted a response on Dec. 13, 1968 stating -
among other lies - that "[it] is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the
Vietnamese people are excellent" while denying any pattern of wrong-doing.
Powell was simply protecting other murderous gang members (especially his bosses) from
justice, thus becoming another un-indicted accessory to murder. The gods are not interested
in justice, though, and he roams free.
Wow I wish I had know that little tidbit back then when I watched the full uninterrupted UN
broadcasts from the Security Council before the war. He pretty much managed to get the US a
free pass with his testimony of lies. I believed him and so did a lot of other people. Now
his whitewash of My Lai is even on his Wikipedia page. Thank you Trisha.
Several years earlier I got to know about My Lai during relatively brief military
education (non-US but NATO) on the rules of the Geneva Convention, it was used as the prime
example of when to resist and disobey unlawful orders (I have to wonder if it still is).
If there had been a free press they should have shouted this little fact at the top of
their lungs while mocking the US, maybe someone somewhere did but I never heard any mention
of it, not even from any of all the people I knew that were opposing the war and who never
seemed to have anything substantive to say (a bit like BLM: who isn't against murder and
particularly murder committed by "cops"? There's a serious communication problem going
on).
I find this so strange that I'm starting to wonder if I have an extremely selective
memory. Did anyone here learn about this at the time? Not counting anyone who already
knew it well before that time.
Now "Horrible Lisa" re-surfaced in MSNBC. Not surprising one bit. This is a deep state retirement package...
Notable quotes:
"... Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ..."
Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ; reaction and analysis on 'The Five.'
Slime, slime and more slime. Obama headed up the whole thing. Zero integrity there.
The leaders of the Democratic Party, Barrak
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, Chuck Schummer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Shiff and his sisters father-in-law
George Soros.
Here is what this all boils down to. Hillary Clinton email to Donna Brazile, Oct., 17, 2016. "If that f*cking ba*tard
wins, we're all going to hang from nooses! You better fix this sh*t!"
So another rabid neocon is hired by neocon MSM and instantly was interviewed by neocon Madcow, blaming Russia for the coup
d'état against Trump that Obama administration with her help launched. Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Page testified that even by May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia. ..."
"... There was little reason to believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election. ..."
"... The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document ..."
"... it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy." ..."
"... Page also left out her other emails including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed to both Trump and the Republicans. ..."
Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who resigned in the midst of the Russian investigation
scandal, has been hired a NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst. The move continues a trend started
by CNN in hiring Trump critics, including officials terminated for misconduct, to offer legal
analysis on the Trump Administration.
We have previously discussed the use by CNN of figures like Andrew McCabe to give legal
analysis despite his being referred for possible criminal charges by the Inspector General for
repeatedly lying to federal investigators. The media appears intent on fulfilling the narrative
of President Trump that it is overly biased and hostile in its analysis. Indeed, it now appears
a marketing plan that has subsumed the journalistic mission.
Page appeared with Rachel Maddow and began her work as the new legal analyst by discussing
her own controversial work at the FBI. Page is still part of investigation by various
committees and the investigation being conducted by U.S Attorney John Durham.
I have
denounced President Trump for his repeated and often vicious references to Page's affair with
fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok . There is no excuse for such personal abuse. I also
do not view her emails as proof of her involvement in a deep-state conspiracy as opposed to
clearly inappropriate and partisan communications for someone involved in the investigation.
Indeed, Page did not appear a particularly significant figure in the investigation or even the
FBI as a whole. She was primarily dragged into the controversy due to her relationship with
Strzok.
However, Trump has legitimate reason to object (as he has) to this hiring as do those who
expect analysis from experts without a personal stake in the ongoing investigations. It has
long been an ethical rule in American journalism not to pay for interviews. Either NBC is
paying for exclusive rights to Page in interviews like the one on Maddow's show or it is hiring
an expert with a personal stake in these controversies to give legal analysis. Neither is a
good option for a network that represented the gold standard in journalism with figures like
John Chancellor, Edwin Newman, and Roger Mudd.
It is not that Page disagrees with the Administration on legal matters or these cases. It is
the fact that she is personally involved in the ongoing stories and has shown intense and at
times unhinged bias against Trump in communications with Strzok and others. She is the news
story, or at least a significant part of it.
Andrew A. Weissmann has also been retained as a legal analyst by NBC and MSNBC. While
Weissmann has been raised by Republicans as a lightening rod for his perceived partisan bias as
a member of the Mueller team, he does not have the type of personal conflict or interest in
these investigations. Weissmann is likely to be raised in the hearing over the next weeks into
the Flynn case in terms of prosecutorial decisions. (It is worth noting that Fox hired Trey
Gowdy at an analyst even though he would be commenting on matters that came before his
committee in these investigations.) In terms of balance, however, the appearance of both Page
and Weissmann giving analysis on the Administration's response to the protests is a bit
jarring for some .
Page was an unknown attorney in the FBI before she was forced into the public eye due to her
emails with Strzok. Her emails fueled the controversy over bias in the FBI. They were
undeniably biased and strident including the now famous reference to the FBI investigation as
"insurance" in case Trump was elected. In the email in August 2016, here's what Strzok
wrote:
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office [Andrew McCabe
is the FBI deputy director and married to a Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate] for
that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40
What particularly concerns me is that Page has come up recently in new disclosures in the Flynn
case . In newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the
email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law
that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an
easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national
security or learning critical intelligence. As I have noted, the email reinforces other
evidence that it was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy
hunt.
It appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI's Washington Field Office issued a "Closing
Communication" indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE RAZOR" -- the newly
disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened. The FBI had
investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that "no derogatory information was
identified in FBI holdings." Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that
Flynn "was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella
case." On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case
manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him "Hey don't close
RAZOR." The FBI official replied, "Okay." Strzok then confirmed again, "Still open right? And
you're the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file." The FBI official confirmed:
"I have not closed it Still open." Strzok responded "Rgr. I couldn't raise [REDACTED] earlier.
Pls keep it open for now."
Strzok also texted Page:
"Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?"
Page replied "Phew. But yeah that's amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess."
Strzok replied "Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I'm
guessing :)"
Page will be the focus of much of the upcoming inquiries both in Congress and the Justice
Department as will CNN's legal analyst Andrew McCabe.
In her Maddow segment, Page attempts to defuse the "insurance policy" email as all part of
her commitment to protecting the nation, not her repeatedly stated hatred for Trump. In what is
now a signature for MSNBC, Maddow did not ask a single probative question but actually helped
her frame the response. Even in echo journalistic circles, the echo between the two was
deafening.
Page explained"
"It's an analogy. First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of interpreting what I
believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're talking about
whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the likelihood that
he's going to be president or not."
You have to keep in mind if President Trump doesn't become president, the
national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia,
plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his
campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified
information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security
apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an analogy. It's like an insurance policy when
you're 40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance
policy."
Maddow then decided to better frame the spin:
"So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected and therefore not press forward
with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case
he does get in there."
Page simply responds " Exactly ."
Well, not exactly.
Page is leaving out that, as new documents show, there never was credible evidence of any
Russian collusion. Recently, the Congress unsealed testimony from a long line of Obama
officials who denied ever seeing such evidence,
including some who publicly suggested that they had .
Indeed, Page testified that even by
May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility
that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia.
There was little reason to
believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the
effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election.
The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents
began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document and suggested it might be
disinformation from Russian intelligence. The IG said that, due to the relatively low standard
required for a FISA application, he could not say that the original application was invalid but
that it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of
the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy."
Page also left out her other emails
including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if
she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed
to both Trump and the Republicans.
Bias however has become the coin of the realm for some networks. Why have echo journalism
when you can have an analyst simply repeat her position directly? For viewers who become irate
at the appearance of opposing views (
as vividly demonstrated in the recent apology of the New York Times for publishing a
conservative opinion column ), having a vehemently biased and personally invested analyst
is reassuring. It is not like Page will suddenly blurt out a defense of Flynn or Trump or
others in the Administration.
With Page, NBC has crossed the Rubicon and left its objectivity scattered on the far
bank.
we_the_people, 11 minutes ago (Edited)
Nothing says professional journalism like hiring a dirty whore who was an active
participant in a coup to overthrow a duly elected President!
The level of insanity is truly amazing!
Heroism, 14 minutes ago
The MSM gets more Orwellian by the day, and today is like tomorrow.
More proof that corruption and deceit pay, big time. Surely, at some point viewers and voters
will say, "Enough!" and hit these purveyors of lies where it hurts--in the ratings and pocketbooks. Meanwhile,
the people will just willingly suffer..............
Hollywood once gave us the Cold War thriller called "The Hunt for Red October ." And now the
U.S. Senate and its Republican committee chairmen in Washington have launched a different sort
of hunt made for the movies.
Armed with subpoenas, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., want to
interrogate a slew of Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials hoping to identify
who invented and sustained the bogus Russia collusion narrative that hampered Donald Trump's
early presidency.
And while Graham and Johnson aren't exactly Sean Connery and Alec Baldwin, they and their
GOP cohorts have a theory worthy of a Tom Clancy novel-turned-movie: The Russia collusion
investigation was really a plot by an outgoing administration to thwart the new president.
"What we had was a very quiet insurrection that took place," Sen. Marsha Blackburn, the
Tennessee Republican, told Just the News on Thursday as she described the theory of Senate
investigators. "And there were probably dozens of people at DOJ and FBI that knew what was
going on.
"But they hate Donald Trump so much that they were willing to work under the cloak of law
and try to use that to shield them so that they could take an action on their disgust," she
added. "They wanted to prohibit him from being president. And when he won, they wanted to
render him ineffective at doing his job."
For much of the last two years, the exact theory that congressional Republicans held about
the bungled, corrupt Russia probe -- where collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin
was ultimately disproven and FBI misconduct was confirmed -- was always evolving.
But after explosive testimony this week from former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,
who openly accused the FBI of keeping him in the dark about flaws, failures and exculpatory
evidence in the case, the GOP believes it may prove the Russia case was a conspiracy to use the
most powerful law enforcement and intelligence tools in America to harm Trump.
Two years of declassified memos are now in evidence that show:
The FBI was warned before it used Christopher Steele's dossier as evidence to target the
Trump campaign with a FISA warrant that the former British spy might be the target of Russian
disinformation, that he despised Trump and that he was being paid to help Hillary Clinton's
campaign. But agents proceeded anyway.
The bureau was told by the CIA that its primary target, Trump adviser Carter Page, wasn't
a Russian spy but rather a CIA asset. But it hid that evidence from the DOJ and courts, even
falsifying a document to keep the secret.
The FBI opened a case on Trump adviser George Papadopoulos on the suspicion he might
arrange Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton but quickly determined he didn't have the Russian
contacts to pull it off. But the case kept going.
The FBI intercepted conversations between its informants and Papadopoulos and Page
showing the two men made numerous statements of innocence, and kept that evidence from the
DOJ and the courts.
The FBI investigated Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for five months and
concluded there was no derogatory evidence he committed a crime or posed an intelligence
threat and recommended closing the case. But higher-ups overruled the decision and proceeded
to interview Flynn.
The FBI and DOJ both knew by August 2017 there was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
but allowed another 18 months of investigation to persist without announcing the president
was innocent.
That is just a handful of the key evidentiary anchors of the storyline Republicans have
developed. Now they want to know who helped carry out each of these acts.
"There are millions of Americans pretty upset about this," Graham said this week. "There
are people on our side of the aisle who believe this investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, was
one of the most corrupt, biased criminal investigations in the history of the FBI. And we'd
like to see something done about it ."
Graham tried to take action to approve 50-plus subpoenas from the Senate Judiciary Committee
to witnesses on Thursday but was forced to delay a week.
Johnson, meanwhile, successfully secured about three dozen subpoenas to get documents and
interviews with key witnesses from his Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee.
Evidence is growing, Johnson said, that there was not a "peaceful and cooperative"
transition between the Obama and Trump administrations in 2017.
"The conduct we know that occurred during the transition should concern everyone and
absolutely warrants further investigation," he said.
With Rosenstein's testimony now behind them, the senators have some lofty targets for
interviews or testimony going forward, including fired FBI Director James Comey, his deputy
Andrew McCabe, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, and the former chiefs of staff for President
Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
Blackburn said during an interview with the John Solomon Reports podcast that the goal of
the subpoenas and witnesses was simple: to identify and punish the cast of characters who
sustained a Russia collusion narrative that was never supported by the evidence.
"Somebody cooked up the plot," she explained.
"Somebody gave the go-ahead to order, to implement it. Somebody did the dirty work and
carried it out -- and probably a lot of somebodies. And what frustrates the American people
is that nobody has been held accountable.
"Nobody has been indicted. Nobody has been charged, and they're all getting major book deals
and are profiting by what is criminal activity, if you look at the statutes that are on the
book, and if you say we're going to abide by the rule of law and be a nation of laws."
For Blackburn, identifying and punishing those responsible is essential for two goals: to
deter anyone in the future from abusing the FBI and FISA process again and to ensure Americans
there isn't a two-tiered system of justice in America.
"I think when you Google [Russia collusion] in future years, you're going to see a
screenshot of this cast of characters that cooked this up, because it is the ultimate plot,"
Blackburn said.
MSNBC announced on Friday that it has hired former FBI lawyer Lisa Page as an NBC News and
MSNBC national security and legal analyst.
On Friday night, President Trump blasted MSNBC's latest hiring decision.
"You must be kidding??? This is a total disgrace!" Trump tweeted.
Page made her debut as an MSNBC analyst during "Deadline: White House" alongside former
Mueller probe prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who appears to have been rehired by the network
after they severed ties after it was announced he was hosting a Biden fundraiser, which was
ultimately canceled.
Both Page and Weissmann offered legal analysis on the ongoing feud between President Trump
and Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser over the presence of outside troops.
Page is best known for her publicized text exchanges with her lover, ex-FBI agent Peter
Strzok, which revealed extreme animosity towards Trump during the 2016 election and created the
perception that their political views fueled the Russia investigation.
The texts that sounded the alarm for GOP lawmakers was Strzok's reference to an "insurance
policy" that was discussed at Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe's office. Page denied that
meant the FBI had plotted to remove Trump if he won the election.
Last December, Page broke her silence and made her television debut on MSNBC's "The Rachel
Maddow Show," where she was asked about the "insurance policy" text.
"It's an analogy," Page explained. "First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of
interpreting what I believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're
talking about whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the
likelihood that he's going to be president or not."
She continued, "You have to keep in mind ... if President Trump doesn't become president,
the national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia,
plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his
campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified
information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security
apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an anology. It's like an insurance policy when you're
40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance policy."
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow chimed in, "So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected
and therefore not press forward with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with
the investigation just in case he does get in there."
many thoughtful observers on the right -- including Ross Douthat ,
Rod Dreher , and
Dan McCarthy -- have pointed out that the current protesting and rioting is likely to help
Donald Trump and the Republicans. That is, the ongoing violence, fomented by leftist elements,
including Black Lives Matter and Antifa, could boomerang against Joe Biden and his
Democrats.
However, the planted assumption here is that the vandals and looters want Joe Biden to win.
And that's not so obvious. Indeed, maybe the truth is just the reverse.
To be sure, the protesters and looters all hate Donald Trump. And yet actions speak louder
than words, and their actions on the street suggest a kind of anti-matter affection for the Bad
Orange Man. That is, each act of violence obscures the memory of George Floyd, who died at the
knee of a Minneapolis policeman, and raises the prospect of a national backlash against both
peaceful protestors and violent looters, offering a ray of hope for Trump.
Indeed, Douthat quotes Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, whose research shows that
back in the 1960s, peaceful civil rights protests helped the Democrats, while violent
protests (also known as riots) hurt the Democrats. In Wasow's words, "proximity to
black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to
black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines." And that's how Republican
Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
We might add that Humphrey was a lot like Biden. Both were gabby senators turned vice
presidents, regarded as reliable liberals, not as hard-edged leftists.
So now we're starting to see where Biden, a pillar of the smug liberal establishment -- he
once
told a group of donors that if he's elected, "nothing would fundamentally change" -- veers
away from the far-left ideologues amidst the mobs.
Let's let Andy Ngo –who has
shed blood , literally, while chronicling bullyboy leftists -- define the ideology of
Antifa and Black Lives Matter: "At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia
Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM's founders, are self-identified Marxists who make
no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want
the abolition of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the
rule of law. Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter, for now, to help accelerate the
breakdown of society."
We can observe that by "regime change," these revolutionary leftists don't mean replacing
Trump with Biden -- they mean replacing capitalism and the Constitution. In the meantime, if
one looks at a Twitter feed identified by Ngo as an Antifa hub, It's Going Down , one sees plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric,
along with general hard leftism, but nothing in support of Biden.
However, here's something interesting: The Biden campaign shows no small degree of
support for the street radicals. As Reuters
reported on May 30,
"At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on
Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which opposes the
practice of cash bail, or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group uses
donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis."
We might observe that these 13 employees posted their pro-rioter sympathies on Twitter; in
other words, not only did they make no effort to hide their donations, but they also actively
bragged about them.
It could be argued, of course, that these are just 13 vanguard employees out of a campaign
staff that numbers in the hundreds, maybe even thousands. And yet as the Reuters piece adds,
Team Biden is not practicing political distancing from its in-house radicals: "Biden campaign
spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to Reuters that the former vice president opposes
the institution of cash bail as a 'modern day debtors prison.'"
When pressed by Reuters -- which is not exactly Fox News in its editorial stance -- the
official spox for Middle Class Joe was unwilling to say more: "The campaign declined to answer
questions on whether the donations were coordinated within the campaign, underscoring the
politically thorny nature of the sometimes violent protests."
So we can see: The Biden campaign is trying to maintain its equipoise between liberals and
mobs, even as the former is bleeding into the latter. Indeed, a look at Biden's Twitter feed
shows the same port-side balancing act. On May 30, for instance, he tweeted , "If we are complacent,
if we are silent, we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence. None of us can
turn away. We all have an obligation to speak out."
There's enough ambiguity here, as well as in his other tweets, to leave everyone parsing,
and guessing, as to what, exactly, Biden is saying -- except, as he
said on June 2, that he opposes the use of chokeholds to restrain violent suspects, and
also opposes more equipment for the police. The only other thing we know for sure is that he
hasn't tweeted an iota of specific sympathy for the people other than George Floyd who have
died in the recent violence. One such is
Patrick Underwood , an African American employee of the Federal Protective Service; he was
shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. on May 29.
Yet while the Biden campaign attempts to keep its relationship with Antifa and its ilk
fuzzy, other Democrats have made themselves clear. For instance, in 2018, then-Congressman
Keith Ellison tweeted
out a photograph of himself holding a copy of a book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,
which the radical-chic types at The New Yorkerdescribed as
"A how-to for would-be activists, and a record of advice from anti-Fascist organizers past and
present." Ellison is now the attorney general for the state of Minnesota.
And on May 31, Ellison's son, Jeremiah, a Minneapolis city councilman, tweeted , "I hereby
declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA."
Still, if the Democrats can't quite quit Antifa, most are smart enough to recognize the
danger of being too closely associated with hooligans and radicals. Moreover, they need some
theory of the case they wish to make, which is that they loudly support the protests, even as
they mumble about the violence.
And Democrats have found their favored argument -- the one that conveniently takes them off
the hook. Indeed, it's an argument they increasingly deploy to explain everything bad that
happens: The Russians did it.
Thus on May 31, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said on CNN of the
tumult, "In my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook."
We might allow that it's possible, even probable, that the Russian government has been
taking delight in this spate of violence in America. And it's similarly probable that the
governments of China, Iran, and Venezuela, too, have been pleased, to say nothing of varying
portions of the public in every country. And so sure, more than a few tweets and Facebook posts
have probably resulted -- after all, stories ripping the U.S. were right there, for instance,
on the front
page of China's Global Times .
Still, it's ridiculous to think that hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of Americans
are taking their cues from a foreign power; we've got plenty of home-grown radicalism and
anger.
Yet even so, the Democrats have persisted in their Russia-dunnit narrative, because
it serves their political, and perhaps psychological, need -- the need to externalize criminal
behavior. In other words, don't blame us for the killings and lootings -- blame Moscow.
Okay, so back to Antifa and Black Lives Matter. The left wing of the Democratic Party --
including elements within the Biden campaign -- might like them, but there's no evidence that
they like Democrats back.
Indeed, if the violence keeps up, it will become obvious that the leftist radicals are
not trying to help Biden. To put it another way, the rads would become the objective
allies (a political science term connoting an ironic congruence of interest) of Trump.
To be sure, right now, Trump is running five or six points behind Biden in the
RealClearPolitics
polling average . And yet, just as Dreher, Douthat, and McCarthy suggest, if the violence
continues and Trump goes firm while Biden stays mushy, that could change.
Indeed, as we think of genuine radicalism, we would do well to look beyond the parochial
confines of American politics, Democrat vs. Republican. Instead, we might ponder the epic
panorama of leftist history, which offers radicals so much more inspiration than historically
centrist America.
For instance, we might look to Russia. But not to the Russia of Vladimir Putin , but
rather, to the Russia of Vladimir Lenin .
In the early 20th century, Lenin's Bolsheviks, awaiting their revolutionary moment, operated
according to a simple slogan: "The worse the better." That is, the enemy of Bolshevism was
incremental reform, or progress of any kind; the reds wanted conditions to get so bad as to
"justify" a communist revolution. And that's what Lenin and his comrades got in October 1917,
when they seized power in the midst of the calamities of World War One.
Yes, of course, the communists made conditions worse, not better, for ordinary Russians. And
yet things weren't worse for Lenin and his Bolsheviks -- they were now in power. So today,
that's the sort of dream that inspires Antifa radicals.
To be sure, an America dominated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter is a distant prospect. But
radicals figure that four more years of Trump in the White House will move the nation to even
higher levels of chaos -- and thus move them closer to power.
With all that in prospect for radicals -- that is, the worse, the better -- the
prospect of Joe Biden losing this year is a small price to pay. Actually, for them, it's no
price at all.
In the meantime, for America, there is no better. Only worse.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?
FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?
AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.
DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?
AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.
DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where
the server was examined?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI Laboratories?
AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.
DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in
FBI laboratories?
AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.
(silence)
DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?
AGENT: Uh .. no.
DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?
AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked
the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually
examined the computer hardware?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?
AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.
DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?
AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?
AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.
DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their
servers?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?
AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?
AGENT: I don't know.
DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?
AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.
DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers
of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic
National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?
AGENT: No, I cannot.
DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?
AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Did you lose it?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?
AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?
AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.
DEF ATT: A draft copy?
AGENT: Yes.
DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why not?
AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never
actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is
that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided
you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.
PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.
Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a
whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for their source and about the murder of seth rich).
Neoliberal MSM just “got it wrong,” again … exactly like was the case
with those Iraqi WMDs ;-).
So many neocons and neolibs seem so disappointed to find out that the President is not a
Russian asset that it looks they’d secretly wish be ruled by Putin :-).
But in reality there well might be a credible "Trump copllition with the foreign power". Only
with a different foreign power. Looks like Trump traded American foreign policy for Zionist
money, not Russian money. That means that "the best-Congress-that-AIPAC-money-can-buy" will never
impeach him for that.
And BTW as long as Schiff remains the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee the witch
hunt is not over. So the leash remains strong.
Notable quotes:
"... it appears that hundreds of millions of Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening. At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the entire history of woeful bamboozlement. ..."
"... That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western democracy. ..."
"... Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about redactions and cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents marching Hillary into the White House. ..."
So the Mueller report is finally in, and it appears that hundreds of millions of
Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening.
At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the
entire history of woeful bamboozlement.
If you didn't know better, you'd think we were all a bunch of hopelessly credulous imbeciles
that you could con into believing almost anything, or that our brains had been bombarded with
so much propaganda from the time we were born that we couldn't really even think anymore.
That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a
pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally
losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent
conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western
democracy.
After two long years of bug-eyed hysteria, Inspector Mueller came up with squat. Zip. Zero.
Nichts. Nada. Or, all right, he indicted a bunch of Russians that will never see the inside of
a courtroom, and a few of Trump's professional sleazebags for lying and assorted other
sleazebag activities (so I guess that was worth the $25 million of taxpayers' money that was
spent on this circus).
Notwithstanding those historic accomplishments, the entire Mueller investigation now appears
to have been another wild goose chase (like the "search" for those non-existent WMDs that we
invaded and destabilized the Middle East and murdered hundreds of thousands of people
pretending to conduct in 2003). Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about
redactions and
cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of
the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents
marching Hillary into the White House.
The jig, as they say, is up.
But let's try to look on the bright side, shall we?
The Senate Should Focus On What The Flynn Transcripts Do Not Contain... Starting With A
Crime by Tyler
Durden Tue, 06/02/2020 - 22:45 Authored by Jonathan Turley,
Yesterday, the attorney hired by Judge Emmet Sullivan responded on his behalf to
defend his controversial orders in the case to invite third parties to argue the merits of the
motion to dismiss as well as raising his option to substitute his own criminal charge of
perjury against Flynn. The Justice Department responded with a 45-page filing to a
three-judge appeals court panel.
The attention will now focus on the appearance tomorrow of former Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein in the Senate. For me, the most pertinent question is why this investigation
continued past December and seemed to become to a search for a crime rather than the
investigation of any crime or collusion with Russia.
"Remember Ambassador, you're not talking to a diplomat, you're talking to a soldier."
When President Trump
's incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn , said those words to then-Russian
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he also spoke to American intelligence agents listening in on the
call. For three years, congressional Democrats have assured us Flynn's calls to Kislyak were so
disturbing that they set off alarms in the closing days of the Obama administration.
They were right. The newly released transcripts of Flynn's calls are deeply disturbing --
not for their evidence of criminality or collusion but for the total absence of such evidence.
The transcripts, declassified Friday, strongly support new investigations by both the Justice
Department and by Congress, starting with next week's Senate testimony by former Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
It turns out Flynn's calls are not just predictable but even commendable at points. When the
Obama administration hit the Russians with sanctions just before leaving office, the incoming
Trump administration sought to avoid a major conflict at the very start of its term. Flynn
asked the Russian to focus on "common enemies" in order to seek cooperation in the Middle East.
The calls covered a variety of issues, including the sanctions.
What was not discussed was any quid pro quo or anything untoward or unlawful. Flynn stated
what was already known to be Trump policy in seeking a new path with Russia. Flynn did not
offer to remove sanctions but, rather, encouraged the Russians to respond in a reciprocal,
commensurate manner if they felt they had to respond.
The calls, and Flynn's identity, were leaked by as many as nine officials as the Obama
administration left office -- a serious federal crime, given their classified status . The most
chilling aspect of the transcripts, however, is the lack of anything chilling in the calls
themselves. Flynn is direct with Kislyak in trying to tone down the rhetoric and avoid
retaliatory moves. He told Kislyak, "l am a very practical guy, and it's about solutions. It's
about very practical solutions that we're -- that we need to come up with here." Flynn said he
understood the Russians might wish to retaliate for the Obama sanctions but encouraged them not
to escalate the conflict just as the Trump administration took office.
Kislyak later spoke with Flynn again and confirmed that Moscow agreed to tone down the
conflict in the practical approach laid out by Flynn. The media has focused on Flynn's later
denial of discussing sanctions; the transcripts confirm he did indeed discuss sanctions.
However, the Justice Department has not sought to dismiss criminal charges against him because
he told the truth but because his statements did not meet a key element of materiality for the
crime and were the result of troubling actions by high-ranking officials.
The real question is why the FBI continued to investigate Flynn in the absence of any crime
or evidence of collusion. In December 2016, investigators had found no evidence of any crime by
Flynn. They wanted to shut down the investigation; they were overruled by superiors, including
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Director James Comey. Strzok
told the investigators to keep the case alive, and McCabe is described as "cutting off" another
high-ranking official who questioned the basis for continuing to investigate Flynn. All three
officials were later fired, and all three were later found by career officials to have engaged
in serious misconduct as part of the Russia investigation.
Recently disclosed information revealed that Comey and President Obama discussed using the
Logan Act as a pretense for a criminal charge. The Logan Act criminalizes private negotiations
with foreign governments; it is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used
successfully against any U.S. citizen since the earliest days of the Republic. Its use against
the incoming national security adviser would have been absurd. Yet, that unconstitutional crime
was the only crime Comey could come up with, long before there was a false statement by Flynn
regarding his calls.
Not until February 2017 did Comey circumvent long-standing protocols and order an interview
with Flynn. Comey later bragged that he "probably wouldn't have gotten away with it" in other
administrations, but he sent "a couple guys over" to question Flynn, who was settling into his
new office as national security adviser. We learned recently that Strzok discussed trying to
get Flynn to give false or misleading information in that interview, to enable a criminal
charge, and that FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggested agents "just casually slip" in a reference to
the criminal provision for lying and then get Flynn to slip up on the details.
Flynn did slip up. While investigators said they were not convinced he intentionally lied,
he gave a false statement. Later, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with that false
statement, to pressure him into cooperating; Flynn fought the case into virtual bankruptcy but
agreed to plead guilty when Mueller threatened to prosecute his son, too.
The newly released transcripts reveal the lack of a foundation for that charge. Courts have
held that the materiality requirement for such a charge requires that misstatements be linked
to the particular "subject of the investigation." The Justice Department found that the false
statement in February 2017 was not material "to any viable counterintelligence investigation --
or any investigation, for that matter -- initiated by the FBI." In other words, by that time,
these FBI officials had no crime under investigation but were, instead, looking for a crime.
The question is: Why?
So the transcripts confirm there never was a scintilla of criminal conduct or evidence of
collusion against Flynn before or during these calls. Indeed, there was no viable criminal
investigation to speak of when Comey sent "a couple guys over" to entrap Flynn; they already
had the transcripts and the knowledge that Flynn had done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, facing
the release of these transcripts, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
bizarrely maintained that "Flynn posed a severe counterintelligence risk" because he could be
blackmailed over his false statement.
Putting aside the lack of prior evidence of criminality, Schiff ignores that there were
transcripts to prevent such blackmail. Indeed, in the interview, Flynn indicated he assumed
there was a transcript, and leaked media reports indicated that various officials were familiar
with the content of the calls. The key to blackmail would have been for the Russians to have
information that others did not have.
Ironically, in his calls with Kislyak, Flynn expressly sought a more frank, honest
relationship with Russia. He told Kislyak "we have to stop talking past each other on -- so
that means that we have to understand exactly what it is that we want to try to achieve, okay?"
That is a question that should now be directed at the FBI, to understand what it was trying to
achieve by continuing an investigation long after it ran out of crimes to investigate.
So one of key players of Russiagate gaslighting and Flynn entrapment trying the same dirty trick again. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... "We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well." ..."
"... "I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form." ..."
President Barack Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice suggested without evidence that the Russians could be behind
the violent demonstrations that have taken place across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd.
Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sunday, Rice said:
"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be
addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different.
And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience
this is right out of the Russian playbook as well."
"I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."
Rice admits she's not reading the intelligence anymore, so what makes her think the Russians are behind this?
She doesn't offer much more in the way of evidence for her assertion, other than that the Russians are the Democrats' always-present
bogeyman, ever ready from behind
their poorly translated social media posts to unleash mayhem upon the U.S.
Ever since the election of President Donald Trump, Democrats have blamed Russians for the outcome of the 2016 election.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller found evidence that Russian-linked accounts spent
a small amount of money placing social media ads for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election, but there's nothing to suggest
their efforts were successful. The Department of Justice abruptly dropped its prosecution of a Russian-based troll farm, days before
trial. Mueller also did not find evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election.
Although the claims of Russian "collusion" in the 2016 election were eventually found to be nearly totally baseless, Rice's new
narrative, that Russians support 2020's post-Floyd rioting, appears to be even more fact-threadbare.
Rice's claim drew criticism from across the political spectrum.
Eoin Higgens, a senior editor at Common Dreams, tweeted "you cannot make
this sh– up. F -- - deranged" while former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy
tweeted "there she goes again."
There's a reason Rice's claim was not taken seriously -- besides the lack of evidence for the Russian meddling narrative that has
dominated the nation's political life since 2016, there's also the sheer ineptitude of the actual Russian trolling and ads themselves.
Just look at this ad the Russians funded from the 2016 election cycle for a taste of how convincing those Russians and their social
media campaigns can be:
I haven't seen condemnation across the political spectrum. There are a few hard-left progressives like Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi,
and Glenn Greenwald of course, but they have always hated the RussiaGate conspiracy. I won't be holding my breath for any of the
#Resistance puppets castigate Rice. They can't, because #RussiaGate is foundational to their existence.
Y'all are really confusing me! During the civil rights marches, conservatives warned people that the "agitators" were Russian
tools. Now, you say that's crazy talk!.
Rice asserts that civic agitation is ". . .right out of the Russian playbook. . ." Let's presume she's had a peek into the
Russia playbook. Her statement can be falsified by the good fact checkers at this website!
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be more surprised than Rice to learn that Russia is still in the outside agitator business.
Just a suggestion, of course. Someone as patriotic as Rice really should check it out.
The saddest thing is that she's been too lazy to come up even with the most jury-rigged conspiracy theory as to why Russians
would need it, despite the fact that emotional reaction-oriented rhetorical turds to... sculpture such a theory (albeit a very
debunkable one) are floating on the surface. A most deplorable intellectual sloth. What to expect from neolibs/neocons, though?
They're always like that. Say some folderol - and then go hiding in the kind Grandpa Bolton's venerable moustɑche.
I don't know which idea is more laughable - Black Americans are so lacking in agency that they aren't even responsible for their
own protests, or, the Russians are so diabolical that they can turn anyone and everyone into the Manchurian Candidate.
More likely, Susan Rice can't admit that her woke ideology has limitations. She needs a scapegoat so badly that she'll babble
any nonsense to accuse one. Hard to believe she was once the National Security Adviser.
I read on a libertarian oriented forum that the current protests are actually being done by the Chinese. Apparently, the Soviets
(Russians) instigated the riots in the late 60s.
Where are all the stars you ask" afterwards they will come out with concerts on TV, speeches big speeches that they real do care
you hear me, PC BS they will look tragic this time, all the makeup in the world won;t hide their deception, arrogance, utter idiocy
in White Towers.
Transcripts of under oath statements before the House Intelligence committee revealed neither Susan Rice nor other Obama administration
officials had any evidence of Russian meddling in 2016. Of course all proceeded with spreading baseless inuendo for years before
and afterwards.
So if not under oath anything Susan Rice alleges is simply not worth listening to.
Seems like so many presidents have been led into terrible foreign policy decisions by their Blob advisors...Obama by Susan Rice,
Samantha Power, and Hillary; Dubya by Cheney and Rumsfield; Carter by Zbiggy, Ford and Nixon (both who should have known better)
by Kissinger.
Susan Rice is more ignorant and has far lower intelligence than I ever suspected or she is playing politics and lying. The Russians
have no motive. The Russians have no hand to play. The Chinese who have bribed a long list of democratic politicians have a very
significant motive and a major hand to play in fomenting riots and race animosity...as a means to influence the November election
away from Trump to Biden.
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally
decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting
more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed
FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic
personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message. ..."
More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to
reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing
charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate
General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's
release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in
Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn
as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as
disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.
The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence
actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of
conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are
the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and
January 12 and January 19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia not to support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn make calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call. First, Kislyak wants to
discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the President-elect that the
Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the Security Council. Flynn says it
is good. Second, the Russians are very interested with working with the President-elect's team
to help the peace process in Syria. Thirdly, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first
conversation on January 21 rst between the presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump
and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! . . . . depending on what actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current
issue of the cyber stuff, . . . they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the
country, I understand all that . . . I know you have to have some sort of action, but to only
make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into
something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the
situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We
don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about
what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to respond we have
decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost . . .
elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responds, "we are not going to agree on
everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And
we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just
what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.
Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and
this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any
opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise
illegally gathered.
And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists'
panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected
impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it
was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.
So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this
transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be
undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if
possible, to overturn it .
This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the
Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.
I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he
moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.
In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake.
Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel
agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext
of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified
anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all
classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified
stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.
It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How
many of the plotter cohort still remain?
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally
decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting
more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed
FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic
personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to
reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing
charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate
General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's
release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in
Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn
as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as
disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.
The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence
actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of
conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are
the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and
January 12 and January 19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia not to support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn make calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call. First, Kislyak wants to
discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the President-elect that the
Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the Security Council. Flynn says it
is good. Second, the Russians are very interested with working with the President-elect's team
to help the peace process in Syria. Thirdly, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first
conversation on January 21 rst between the presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump
and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! . . . . depending on what actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current
issue of the cyber stuff, . . . they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the
country, I understand all that . . . I know you have to have some sort of action, but to only
make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into
something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the
situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We
don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about
what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to respond we have
decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost . . .
elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responds, "we are not going to agree on
everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And
we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just
what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.
Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and
this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any
opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise
illegally gathered.
And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists'
panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected
impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it
was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.
So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this
transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be
undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if
possible, to overturn it .
This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the
Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.
I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he
moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.
In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake.
Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel
agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext
of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified
anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all
classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified
stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.
It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How
many of the plotter cohort still remain?
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of
the media when it comes to reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing
miscarriage of justice in bringing charges against him. The documents declassified and released
by the DNI last Friday exonerate General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as
gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's release of the declassified summaries and transcripts
was overshadowed quickly by rioting in Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the
lede), the documents reveal General Flynn as the consummate professional keen on serving his
country and the Russian Ambassador as disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama
administration.
The declassified
material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence actually consists
of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of conversations for 22,
23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are the full transcripts of
the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and January 12 and January
19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak--Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia to not support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn made calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call.
First, Kislyak wants to discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the
President-elect that the Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the
Security Council. Flynn says it is good.
Second, the Russians are very interesting with working with the President-elect's team to
help the peace process in Syria.
Third, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first conversation on January 21st between the
presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells
Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in right now! . . . . depending on what
actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current issue of the cyber stuff, . . .
they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that . . . I
know you have to have some sort of action, but to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further
than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to
tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the situation where we everybody goes
back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We don't need that right now. We need
cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about what we are going to do because we
have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to responds we have
decided not to act now because, its because the Obama people are dissatisfied that they lost
the elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responded, "we are not going to agree
on everything, you know that, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And we
have to figure out how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana, Kazakstan.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
Now, let us take a new look at the Mueller team's Statement of Offense . The Mueller team got
a key fact wrong. According to the Statement of Offense:
b. On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.
Nope. The date was 29 December 2016. Screwing up a date is not an end-of-the-world mistake,
but it is inexcusable nonetheless.
Let me remind you what Michael Flynn told FBI Agents Strzok and Pientka when they asked if
he "might have asked Kislyak not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response
reciprocal." Flynn said, according to the second draft of the FBI 302 recounting the
conversation, "NOT REALLY, I DON'T REMEMBER."
You can read for yourself Flynn's entire exchange with Kislyak. It covered a variety of
topics. It was not the only issue Flynn was dealing with as the incoming National Security
Advisor. He had lots of conversations, not only with Kislyak, but with other diplomats from
other countries. The fact that he did not precisely remember what he said to Kislyak should not
be surprising.
The real question is why did the FBI withhold the transcript of this conversation? They
could have said, "here is the transcript of your conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, is that
an accurate account?" But they did not. I defy any of you to recall with 100% accuracy a
conversation you had with someone almost a month earlier.
The most fascinating revelation from this transcripts is Ambassador Kislyak stating that
Russia was aware of the Obama Administration's efforts to portray normal diplomatic contacts
between Moscow and the Trump campaign as something nefarious and that Obama was targeting
Trump. Kislyak said:
"And I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only
against Russia, but also against the president elect."
Kislyak and his bosses understood perfectly that the Obama team was attempting a silent coup
and were willing to risk conflict with Russia in order to sell that lie. This is beyond
outrageous on the part of Obama and his crew of white collared criminals. It is sedition. It is
treason.
No honest person can read these transcripts without acknowledging that Flynn spoke as a
diplomat intent on serving the interests of America. He was not engaged in treachery, as
alleged by the corrupt Judge Emmett Sullivan. In fact, Flynn held his tongue with regard to the
Obama crew. He could have trashed them and spoke ill of them. But he did not.
These transcripts show Flynn as a man of honor. A genuine professional. They also expose the
fraud perpetrated on the American public by an FBI and Special Prosecutor intent on smearing
Flynn as acting on behalf of the Russians. Michael Flynn did no such thing.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
Anybody who uses the term "Russiagate" seriously and not to recognize the actual and
serious Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election in support of Trump is
not to be taken remotely seriously.
Russiagate is a valid and IMHO very useful political discourse term which has two
intersecting meanings:
1. Obamagate : Attempt of a certain political forces around Clintons and Obama
with the support of intelligence agencies to stage a "color revolution" against Trump,
using there full control of MSM as air superiority factor. With the main goal is the return
to "classic neoliberalism" (neoliberal globalization uber alles) mode
Which Trump rejected during his election campaign painting him as a threat to certain
powerful neoliberal forces which include but not limited to Silicon Valley moguls (note bad
relations of Trump and Bezos), some part of Wall street financial oligarchy, and most MSMs
honchos.
2. Neo-McCarthyism campaign unleashed by Obama administration with the goal to
whitewash Hillary fiasco and to preserve the current leadership of the Democratic
Party.
That led to complete deterioration of relations between the USA and Russia and increase
of chances of military conflict between two. Add to this consistent attempts of Trump to
make China an enemy and politicize the process of economic disengagement between the two
countries and you understand the level of danger. .
When a senior Russian official implicitly calls the USA a rogue state and Trump
administration -- gangsters on international arena, that a very bad sign. See
But then again, it may well be so that the current Republican administration will in
effect become a line in history in which a considerable number of useful international
instruments were abrogated and that America exited them in the anticipation that this
approach would serve U.S. interests better. Having said that, I will never say or never
suggest that it was for us -- at least in the mid-2010s -- better with the previous
administration.
It was under the previous Obama administration that endless rounds of sanctions were
imposed upon Russia. That was continued under Trump. The pretext for that policy is
totally rejected by Russia as an invalid and illegal one. The previous administration,
weeks before it departed, stole Russian property that was protected by diplomatic
immunity, and we are still deprived of this property by the Trump administration. We have
sent 350 diplomatic notes to both the Obama and the Trump administrations demanding the
return of this property, only to see an endless series of rejections. It is one of the
most vivid and obvious examples of where we are in our relationship.
There is no such thing as "which administration is better for Russia in the U.S.?"
Both are bad, and this is our conclusion after more than a decade of talking to
Washington on different topics.
Heilbrunn: Given the dire situation you portray, do you believe that America has
become a rogue state?
Ryabkov: I wouldn't say so, that's not our conclusion. But the U.S. is clearly an
entity that stands for itself, one that creates uncertainty for the world. America is a
source of trouble for many international actors. They are trying to find ways to protect
and defend themselves from this malign and malicious policy of America that many of the
people around the world believe should come to an end, hopefully in the near future.
What I can't understand is this stupid jingoism, kind of "cult of death" among the US
neocons, who personally are utter chickenhawks, but still from their comfortable offices
write dangerous warmongering nonsense. Without understanding possible longer term
consequences.
Of course, MIC money does not smell, but some enthusiasts in blogs do it even without
proper remuneration
Another is the political assassination of Gen. Flynn. There was indeed a coordinated
conspiracy to find a scapegoat to prevent the shifting from a pro-China/anti-Russia policy to
a pro-Russia/China-as-actual-competitor policy under a DJT presidency.
If you think none of the above carry any weight and you could play a game of shuttlecock
with them not caring which is brought forth, then you might think along Jackrabbit's lines
that the DJT-phenomenon is complete bullshit.
I would argue that the line that DJT is some working-class hero is probably bullshit, but
when it comes to two warring factions of elites fighting over the direction of America, the
struggle right now is very real.
"... What is happening now is the exact same thing as Hong Kong. In any given instance of mass revolt, you have two warring factions, usually funded at the top by diametrically opposed elites. ..."
"... In Hong Kong, it is pro-western, old-guard/money versus Chinese new-guard. ..."
"... Look at the degree of organization (or lack thereof) which was able to politically assassinate Gen. Flynn! You had the dem establishment and billionaires like the Clintons, Obama-faction sycophants all the way up to the top. ..."
You are completely wrong, of course. What is happening now is the exact same thing as Hong Kong. In any given instance of mass revolt, you have two warring factions, usually funded at the top by diametrically opposed elites.
In Hong Kong, it is pro-western, old-guard/money versus Chinese new-guard. In America, we have the old-guard/money represented currently by the DJT-phenomenon, meaning Anti-globalist nationalists, and,
on the other side, you have new-money internationalists and neolibs represented by billionaires, big-tech, the democratic party
and garden-variety globalists.
Look at the degree of organization (or lack thereof) which was able to politically assassinate Gen. Flynn! You had the dem
establishment and billionaires like the Clintons, Obama-faction sycophants all the way up to the top.
You think that this event is entirely grassroots? Give me a f*cking break, vk. You are such a blatantly obvious Chinese shill, no doubt probably employed by globalist entities,
that the fact you are unable to employ an effective and probable analysis on these current "protests" reaffirm to me exactly what
you are and what you stand for.
You could also have the same oligarchs funding both sides in a divide and conquer strategy. This is a common strategy that
has been used in Turkey among others in the runup to the 1980 coup. It was also used by the US and Israel in their funding of
both sides in the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s.
In the former it was used to ramp up violence to justify a military coup. That is very probable here, except that martial law
might be the objective. Similar to the Iran/Iraq, the stoking of violence between liberals and conservatives may simply be to
wear them out for when the economy truly tanks to justify in the minds of the sheeple a greater oppression of demonstrations in
future.
US is becoming like Israel even more. Considering same people rule both countries, and same people train cops in both of them,
is it surprising 99%-ers in US are becoming treated like Palestinians?
Margot Cleveland ( @ProfMJCleveland ) "What Flynn didn't say is treason, but Obama saying
he'll have more flexibility after the election is diplomacy. "
Scenario: Obama wanted a hot Russians confrontation incident to land on the Resolute Desk
the same day Obama moved out and Trump moved in. But the Russians did not take Obama's bait
after expelling the Russians for" election interference"..
Why not - something is up - snoop on Flynn to find out - is Trump cutting a side deal with
Putin, and/or violating the Logan Act - gotcha either way, So Obama thinks. Which was never
his strong suit.
So Flynn is gone and who benefits? The Israelis got their capitol and the word 'occupied'
decoupled from territories, which they didn't need Flynn for, and the common enemy policy
against ISIS and Astana/Syria peace plan are both dead.
"... In any case it looks like Flynn helped to avoid "boxing in" the new administration after the expulsion of Russian diplomats by the lame duck President? . That does not help Trump one bit, because first of all he is incompetent, and secondly he was instantly cooped by neocons, but still ..."
"... The key question here is whether Obama administration has motives to set a trap for Flynn now can be answered positively. If this was an entrapment then this is clearly a criminal offense and Strzok, Comey and possibly Brennan and Clapper, are clearly in hot water. ..."
One plausible hypothesis is that Obama administration decided to revenge Flynn
maneuver to foil Obama last move -- the expulsion of Russian diplomats, which stated
neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA. He explicitly asked Russians not to retaliate and I
would understand why Obama did not like this move.
In any case it looks like Flynn helped to avoid "boxing in" the new administration
after the expulsion of Russian diplomats by the lame duck President? . That does not help
Trump one bit, because first of all he is incompetent, and secondly he was instantly
cooped by neocons, but still
The key question here is whether Obama administration has motives to set a trap for
Flynn now can be answered positively. If this was an entrapment then this is clearly a
criminal offense and Strzok, Comey and possibly Brennan and Clapper, are clearly in hot
water.
The Biden campaign has quietly canceled a fundraiser headlined by
Andrew Weissman - former special counsel Robert Mueller's 'attack dog' lawyer who
hand-picked the so-called '13 angry Democrats.'
Weissman, who attended Hillary Clinton's election night party in 2016, donated to Obama and
the DNC, yet somehow conducted an unbiased investigation that turned up snake-eyes, was set to
do a June 2 "fireside chat" with Biden , according to the
WSJ , which notes that the fundraiser was pulled right after it was posted late last week -
shortly after the Trump campaign began to latch onto it.
Yes, there's more value in keeping the lie going that the mueller special counsel hasn't
already been established beyond any doubt as a fraudulent and deeply unethical partisan
takedown scheme against Trump https://t.co/5wuFYpgggr https://t.co/mxaHomTaQO
Weissman - known as the "architect" of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul
Manafort - notably reached out to a
Ukrainian oligarch for dirt on Trump and his team days after FBI agent Peter Strzok texted
"There's no big there there" regarding the Trump investigation in exchange for 'resolving the
Firtash case' in Chicago, in which he was charged in 2014 with corruption and bribery linked to
a US aerospace deal.
According to investigative journalist John Solomon, Firtash turned down Weissman's offer
because he didn't have credible information or evidence against Trump , Manafort, or anyone
else.
US Attorney for West Texas John Bash has been asked by AG Bill Bar to review the Obama
administration's 'unmasking' practices from before and after the 2016 presidential election,
according
Fox News , citing the DOJ.
Meanwhile, DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told Fox News '
"Hannity" on Wednesday that US Attorney John Durham is also looking into the "unmasking," but
that Bash has been assigned to dig deeper .
"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the
reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of
a broader investigation-- like John Durham's investigation-- looking specifically at who was
unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events,"
said Kupec.
Unmasking is a tool frequently used during the course of intelligence work and occurs
after U.S. citizens' conversations are incidentally picked up in conversations with foreign
officials who are being monitored by the intelligence community. The U.S. citizens'
identities are supposed to be protected if their participation is incidental and no
wrongdoing is suspected. However, officials can determine the U.S. citizens' names through a
process that is supposed to safeguard their rights . In the typical process, when officials
are requesting the unmasking of an American, they do not necessarily know the identity of the
person in advance.
Republicans became highly suspicious of the number of unmasking requests made by the Obama
administration concerning Flynn, and have questioned whether other Trump associates were
singled out. -
Fox News
In short, Bash - a trusted operator within the Trump administration - will dig even deeper
into the Obama administration's use of unmasking against its political opponents.
Looks like Strzok and Page played larger role in Obamagate/Russiagate then it was assumed
initially
Notable quotes:
"... Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House. ..."
"... Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic. ..."
"... "He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating his conversation with Priestap. ..."
"... The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue an interview where agents might catch him in a lie. ..."
"... "The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one investigator with direct knowledge told me. ..."
"... Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened. ..."
"... "I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn prosecution," Ray told Fox News . ..."
"... April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama administration blames his management style for the departure. ..."
"... Jan. 3, 2017: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama's daily briefing and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House. ..."
"... Jan. 4, 2017: Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing memo because the "7th floor" leadership of the FBI is now involved. ..."
"... Jan. 5, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates attends Russia briefing with Obama at the White House and is stunned to learn Obama already knows about the Flynn-Kislyak intercept . Then-FBI Director James Comey claims Clapper told the president, but Clapper has denied telling Obama. ..."
"... Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017. ..."
"... "We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said. ..."
"... Obama weaponized everything he could, ..."
"... The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance, venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their indignation that their status position is merely relative. ..."
"... The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance, perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition. ..."
"... One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his political opponents that will never be exposed ..."
"... John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup started. ..."
"... In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was just a question of who did what, and how much. ..."
"... How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S. politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental? ..."
"... Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what MI-6 does. ..."
"... MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have been sabotaging Brexit for years. ..."
"... It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved. ..."
Agents fretted sharing Flynn intel with departing Obama White House would become fodder for
'partisan axes to grind.'
Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI
counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express
concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House.
Strzok had just engaged in a conversation with his boss, then-FBI Assistant Director William
Priestap, about evidence from the investigation of incoming National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn, codenamed Crossfire Razor, or "CR" for short.
The evidence in question were so-called "tech cuts" from intercepted conversations between
Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to the texts and interviews with
officials familiar with the conversations.
Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically
weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept
cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic.
"He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017,
relating his conversation with Priestap.
"Doesn't want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH. All political, just shows our hand and
potentially makes enemies."
Page seemed less concerned, knowing that the FBI was set in three days to release its
initial assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. election.
"Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially
larger distribution than just the DNI," Page texted back.
Strzok responded, "The question is should we, particularly to the entirety of the lame
duck usic [U.S Intelligence Community] with partisan axes to grind."
That same day Strzok and Page also discussed in text messages a drama involving one of the
Presidential Daily Briefings for Obama.
"Did you follow the drama of the PDB last week?" Strzok asked.
"Yup. Don't know how it ended though," Page responded.
"They didn't include any of it, and Bill [Priestap] didn't want to dissent," Strzok
added.
"Wow, Bill should make sure [Deputy Director] Andy [McCabe] knows about that since he was
consulted numerous times about whether to include the reporting," Page suggested.
You can see the text messages recovered from Strzok's phone here.
The text messages, which were never released to the public by the FBI but were provided to
this reporter in September 2018, have taken on much more significance to both federal and
congressional investigators in recent weeks as the Justice Department has requested that
Flynn's conviction be thrown out and his charges of lying to the FBI about Kislyak
dismissed.
U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen of Missouri (special prosecutor for DOJ), the FBI inspection
division, three Senate committees and House Republicans are all investigating the handling of
Flynn's case and whether any crimes were committed or political influence exerted.
The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a
career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject
its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue
an interview where agents might catch him in a lie.
They also want to know whether the conversation about the PDB involved Flynn and "reporting"
the FBI had gathered by early January 2017 showing the incoming national security adviser was
neither a counterintelligence nor a criminal threat.
"The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one
investigator with direct knowledge told me.
"The bureau knew it did not have evidence to justify that Flynn was either a criminal or
counterintelligence threat and should have shut the case down. But the perception that Obama
and his team would not be happy with that outcome may have driven the FBI to keep the probe
open without justification and to pivot to an interview that left some agents worried
involved entrapment or a perjury trap."
The investigator said more interviews will need to be done to determine exactly what role
Obama's perception of Flynn played in the FBI's decision making.
Recently declassified evidence show a total of 39 outgoing Obama administration officials
sought to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence interviews between Election Day 2016 and
Inauguration Day 2017, signaling a keen interest in Flynn's overseas calls.
Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at
the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if
evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened.
"I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld
information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn
prosecution,"
Ray told Fox News .
"If it turns out that that can be proved, then there are going to be referrals and
potential false statements, and/or perjury prosecutions to hold those, particularly those in
positions of authority, accountable," he added.
Investigators have created the following timeline of key events through documents produced
piecemeal by the FBI over two years:
April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the
administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama
administration blames his management style for the departure.
July 31, 2016:
FBI opens Crossfire Hurricane probe into possible ties between Trump campaign and Russia,
focused on Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Flynn is not an initial target of that
probe.
Aug. 15, 2016: Strzok and Page engage in their infamous text exchange about having an
insurance policy just in case Trump should be elected. "I want to believe the path you threw
out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40," one text reads.
Aug. 16, 2016: FBI opens a sub-case under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella codenamed
Crossfire Razor focused on whether Flynn was wittingly or unwittingly engaged in
inappropriate Russian contact.
Aug. 17, 2016: FBI and DNI provide Trump and Flynn first briefing after winning the
nomination, including on Russia. FBI slips in an agent posing as an assistant for the
briefing to secretly get a read on Flynn for the new investigation, according to the
Justice
Department inspector general report on Russia case. "SSA 1 told us that the briefing
provided him 'the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly some level of familiarity with
[Flynn]. So, should we get to the point where we need to do a subject interview ... would
have that to fall back on,'" the IG report said.
Sept, 2, 2016: While preparing a talking points memo for Obama ahead of a conversation
with Russian leader Vladimir Putin involving Russian election interference, Page texts
Strzok that Obama wants to be read-in on everything the FBI is doing on the Russia
collusion case. "POTUS wants to know everything we're doing," Page texted.
Nov. 10, 2016: Two days after Trump won the election, the president-elect meets with
Obama at the White House and the outgoing president encourages the
incoming president not to hire Flynn as an adviser.
Jan. 3, 2017: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama's daily briefing
and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House.
Jan. 4, 2017:
Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be
shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing
memo because the "7th floor" leadership of the FBI is now involved.
Jan. 5–23, 2017: FBI prepares to conduct an interview of Flynn. The discussions
lead Priestap, the assistant director, to openly question in his
handwritten notes whether the bureau was "playing games" and trying to get Flynn to lie
so "we can prosecute him or get him fired."
Jan. 24, 2017: FBI conducts interview with Flynn.
Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was
offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about
Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017.
"We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who
believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said.
arrowrod , 26 minutes ago
Grenell comes in for a month, releases a **** load of "secret poop", then is replaced.
President Trump should fire the head of the FBI and replace with Grenell. I know, too
easy.
"Expletive deleted", (I'm looking for new cuss words) the FBI and DOJ appear to be a bunch
of stumble bum hacks, yet continue to get away with murder.
Schiff, lied and lied, but had immunity, because anything said on the house floor is safe
from prosecution. Yet, GOP congress critters didn't go on the house floor and read the
transcript from the testimony of the various liars.
"Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God."-ThomasJefferson , 3 hours ago
Obama weaponized everything he could, including race, gender, religion, truth, law
enforcement, judiciary, news industry, intelligence community, international allies and
foes.
The most corrupt administration in the history of the republic. The abuse of power is mind
numbing.
Only one way to rectify the damage the Obama administration has done to the USA is to
systematically undo every single thing they touched.
Decimus Lunius Luvenalis , 3 hours ago
The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much
as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance,
venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their
indignation that their status position is merely relative.
Soloamber , 3 hours ago
The motive was to get Flynn fired and lay the ground work to impeach Trump . The problem is Flynn actually did nothing wrong but he was targeted , framed , and
blackmailed into claiming he lied over nothing illegal .
They destroyed his reputation , they financially ruined him and once they did that the sleazy prosecutors ran like rabbits . The judge is so in the bag , he bullied Flynn with implied threats about treason . The Judge is going to get absolutely fragged . Delay delay delay but the jig is up .
DOJ says case dropped and the Judge wants to play prosecutor . The Judge should be investigated along with the other criminals who framed Flynn . Who is the judge tied to ? Gee I wonder .
Nature_Boy_Wooooo , 4 hours ago
"As long as I'm alive the Republican party won't let anything happen to you."
"Thanks John McCain!......now let's set the trap."
"Let's do it Barry."
THORAX , 4 hours ago
The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance,
perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition.
subgen , 4 hours ago
One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his
political opponents that will never be exposed
sborovay07 , 5 hours ago
John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup
started. CNN should give their fake Pulitzers too the two reporters who told the truth. It
been like the tree that falls in the forest. However, once the arrests start more people will
see the tree that fell. These treasonists
need to pay for their crimes Bigly.
Omni Consumer Product , 4 hours ago
There's too much spookology here for a jury - much less the public - to decipher.
You need a smoking gun, like a tape of Obama saying "I want General Flynn assassinated
because Orange Man Bad".
In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was
just a question of who did what, and how much.
That's what is need here to swell the mass of public opinion. Of course, leftwing true
believers of "the Resistance" will never accept it, but that is what is needed to convince
the significant minority of more centrist Americans who haven't made a final decision
yet.
Lux , 5 hours ago
How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S.
politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental?
fackbankz , 5 hours ago
The Crown took us over in 1913. We're just the muscle.
Lord Raglan , 5 hours ago
Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his
candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to
it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what
MI-6 does.
MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have
been sabotaging Brexit for years.
Brennan's just not smart or creative enough to have figured out the Hoax on his own. He's
certainly corrupt enough.
flashmansbroker , 4 hours ago
More likely, the Brits were asked to do a favor.
Steele Hammorhands , 5 hours ago
It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a
fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved.
Side Note: Does anyone remember when Obama referred to himself as "the first US president
from Kenya" and then laughed about it?
I'm afraid it won't matter how thorough the alternative media debunking of Russiagate
becomes – as long as mainstream media sticks to the story, the neoliberal majority will
too, because it is like catnip to them, absolving responsibility for the defeat, casting
Clinton as the victim of an evil foreign despot, and delegitimizing Trump. Truth is tossed to
the wind by this freight train of powerful interests.
I have little hope Barr and Durham will indict anyone high level.
Ray twice mentioned something about Sanders getting hosed again in the 2020 primary. I
thought it seemed weird how suddenly the primary was declared "over." If there is evidence of
DNC shenanigans in 2020, that would be a very interesting and timely topic.
On June 12, Assange announces Wikileaks will soon be releasing "emails pertinent to
Hillary". On June 14th, Crowdstrike announces: someone, probably the Russians, has hacked the
DNC and taken a Trump opposition research document; the very next day, G2.0 makes his first
public appearance and posts the DNC's Trump oppo research document, with "Russian
fingerprints" intentionally implanted in its metadata. (We now know that he had actually
acquired this from PODESTA's emails, where it appears as an attachment – oops!)
Moreover, G2.0 announces that he was the source of the "emails pertinent to Hillary" –
DNC emails – that Assange was planning to release.
This strongly suggests that the G2.0 persona was working in collusion with Crowdstrike to
perpetrate the hoax that the GRU had hacked the DNC to provide their emails to Wikileaks.
Consistent with this, multiple cyberanalyses point to G2.0 working at various points In the
Eastern, Central, and Western US time zones. (A mere coincidence that the DNC is in the
eastern zone, and that Crowdstrike has offices in the central and western zones?)
If Crowdstrike honestly believed that the DNC had been hacked by the GRU, would there have
been any need for them to perpetrate this fraud?
It is therefore reasonable to suspect, as Ray McGovern has long postulated, that
Crowdstrike may have FAKED a GRU hack, to slander Russia and Assange, while distracting
attention from the content of the released emails.
As far as we know, the only "evidence" that Crowdstrike has for GRU being the perpetrator
of the alleged hack is the presence of "Fancy Bear" malware on the DNC server. But as
cyberanalysts Jeffrey Carr and George Eliason have pointed out, this software is also
possessed by Ukrainian hackers working in concert with Russian traitors and the Atlantic
Council – with which the founders of Crowdstrike are allied.
Here's a key question: When Assange announced the impending release of "emails pertinent
to Hillary" on June 12, how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 immediately know he was referring to DNC
emails? Many people – I, for example – suspected he was referring to her deleted
Secretary of State emails.
Here's a reasonable hypothesis – Our intelligence agencies were monitoring all
communications with Wikileaks. If so, they could have picked up the communications between SR
and Wikileaks that Sy Hersh's FBI source described. They then alerted the DNC that their
emails were about to leaked to Wikileaks. The DNC then contacted Crowdstrike, which arranged
for a "Fancy Bear hack" of the DNC servers. Notably, cyberanalysts have determined that about
2/3 of the Fancy Bear malware found on the DNC servers had been compiled AFTER the date that
Crowdstrike was brought in to "roust the hackers".
Of course, this elaborate hoax would have come to grief if the actual leaker had come
forward. Which might have had something to do with the subsequent "botched robbery" in which
SR was slain.
DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016, amid contoversy over who provided DNC
emails to Wikileaks and over a pending lawsuit concerning voter suppression during the 2016
primaries. Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder, leading some
to believe he was their source for the DNC emails. He was reported to have been a potential
witness in the voter suppression lawsuit filed the day after his death.
Obama ears protrude above this whole revaval of McCarthysim. he should end like the senator
McCarthy -- disgraced. And the damage caused by RussiaGate was already done and is
irrevocable.
CrowdStrike – the forensic investigation firm hired by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) to inspect its computer servers in 2016 – admitted to Congressional
investigators as early as 2017 that it had no direct evidence of Russian hacking, recently
declassified documents show.
CrowdStrike's president Shawn Henry testified, "There's not evidence that [documents and
emails] were actually exfiltrated [from the DNC servers]. There's circumstantial evidence but
no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." This was a crucial revelation because the
thousand ships of Russiagate launched upon the positive assertion that CrowdStrike had
definitely proven a Russian hack. This sworn admission has been hidden from the public for over
two years, and subsequent commentary has focused on that singular outrage.
The next deductive step, though, leads to an equally crucial point: Circumstantial evidence
of Russian hacking is itself flimsy and collapses when not propped up by a claim of conclusive
forensic testing.
THE COVER UP.
On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails
to an unknown entity in a "spear phishing" scam. This has been called a "hack," but it was not.
Instead, it is was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the
internet.
The content of the emails was beyond embarrassing. They
showed election fraud and coordination with the media against the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders. The DNC and the Clinton campaign needed a cover story.
There already existed in Washington brooding suspicion that Vladimir Putin was working to
influence elections in the West. The DNC and the Clinton campaign set out to retrofit that
supposition to explain the emails.
On January 16, 2016, a silk-stocking Washington D.C. think tank, The Atlantic Council
(remember that name), had issued a
dispatch under the banner headline: "US Intelligence Agencies to Investigate Russia's
Infiltration of European Political Parties."
The lede was concise: "American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation
into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed."
There followed a series of pull quotes from an article that appeared in the The Telegraph ,
including that "James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence" was investigating
whether right wing political movements in Europe were sourced in "Russian meddling."
The dispatch spoke of "A dossier" that revealed "Russian influence operations" in Europe.
This was the first time trippy words like "Russian meddling" and "dossier" would appear
together in the American lexicon.
Most importantly, the piece revealed the Obama administration was spying on conservative
European political parties. This means, almost necessarily under the Five
Eyes Agreement , foreign agents were returning the favor and spying on the Trump
campaign.
Blaming Russia would be a handy way to deal with the Podesta emails. The problem was the
technologically impossibility of identifying the perpetrator in a phishing scheme. The only way
to associate Putin with the emails was circumstantially. The DNC retained CrowdStrike to
provide assistance.
On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
announced : "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails
pending publication."
Two days later, CrowdStrike fed the Washington Post a
story , headlined, "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump."
The improbable tale was that the Russians had hacked the DNC computer servers and got away
with some opposition research on Trump. The article quoted CrowdStrike's chief technology
officer and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, who also happens to be a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council.
The next day, a new blog – Guccifer 2.0 – appeared on the
internet and announced:
Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by "sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy,
very easy.
Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats'
mail servers. But he certainly wasn't the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get
access to the DNC's servers.
Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I've been in the DNC's networks for almost a year and
saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's
network.
Guccifer 2.0 posted hundreds of pages of Trump opposition research allegedly hacked from the
DNC and emailed copies to Gawker and The Smoking Gun . In raw form, the opposition research was
one of the documents obtained in the Podesta emails, with a notable difference: It was widely
reported the document now contained "
Russian fingerprints ."
The document had been cut and pasted into a separate Russian Word template that yielded
an abundance of Russian "error "messages . In the
document's metadata was the name of the Russian secret police founder, Felix Dzerzhinsky,
written in the Russian language. The three-parenthesis formulation from the original post ")))"
is the Russian version of a smiley face used
commonly on social media. In addition, the blog's author deliberately used a Russian
VPN service visible in its emails even though there would have been many options to hide
national affiliation.
CrowdStrike would later test the computers and declare this to be the work of sophisticated
Russian spies. Alperovitch described it as, " skilled operational tradecraft ."
There is nothing skilled, though, in ham-handedly disclosing a Russian identity on the
internet when trying to hide it. The more reasonable inference is that this was a set-up. It
certainly looks like Guccifer 2.0 suddenly appeared in coordination with the Washington Post 's
article that appeared the previous day.
THE FRAME UP.
Knowing as we now do that CrowdStrike never corroborated a hack by forensic analysis, the
reasonable inference is that somebody was trying to frame Russia. Most likely, the entities
that spent three years falsely leading the world to believe that direct evidence of a hack
existed – CrowdStrike and the DNC – were the ones involved in the frame-up.
Lending weight to this theory: at the same moment CrowdStrike was raising a false Russian
flag, a different entity, Fusion GPS – also paid by the DNC – was inventing a
phony dossier that ridiculously connected Trump to Russia.
Somehow, the ruse worked.
Rather than report the content of the incriminating emails, the watchdog press instead
reported CrowdStrike's bad explanation: that Putin-did-it.
Incredibly, Trump was placed on the defensive for email leaks that showed his opponent
fixing the primaries. His campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was forced to resign because a
fake ledger suddenly appeared out of Ukraine connecting him to Russia.
Trump protested by stating the obvious: the federal government has "no idea" who was behind
the hacks. The FBI and CIA called him a liar, issuing a "
Joint Statement " that cited Guccifer 2.0, suggesting 17 intelligence agencies agree that
it was the Russians.
Hillary Clinton took advantage of this "intelligence assessment" in the October debate to
portray Trump as Putin's stooge"
"We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that
these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.
And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,"
said Clinton.
The media's fact checkers
excoriated Trump for lying. This was the ultimate campaign dirty trick: a joint operation
by the intelligence agencies and the media against a political candidate. It has since been
learned that the "17 intelligence agencies" claptrap was always
false . Those responsible for the exaggeration were James Clapper, James Comey and John
Brennan.
Somehow, Trump won anyway.
Those who assert that it is a "conspiracy theory" to say that CrowdStrike would fabricate
the results of computer forensic testing to create a false Russian flag should know that it was
caught doing exactly that around the time it was inspecting the DNC computers.
On Dec. 22, 2016, CrowdStrike caused an international stir when it claimed to have uncovered
evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery computer app to help pro-Russian
separatists. Voice of America later determined the claim
was false , and CrowdStrike retracted its finding. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense was forced
to eat crow and admit that the hacking never happened. If you wanted a computer testing firm to
fabricate a Russian hack for political reasons in 2016, CrowdStrike was who you went out and
hired.
Perhaps most insidiously, the Obama administration played the phony Russian interference
card during the transition to try to end Trump's presidency before it started. As I
wrote in December 2017:
Michael Flynn was indicted for a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on
December 28, 2016, seven weeks after the election.
That was the day after the outgoing president expelled 35 Russian diplomats -- including
gardeners and chauffeurs -- for interfering in the election. Yes, that really happened.
The Obama administration had wiretapped Flynn's conversation with the ambassador, hoping
to find him saying something they could use to support their wild story about collusion.
The outrage, for some reason, is not that an outgoing administration was using wiretaps to
listen in on a successor's transition. It is that Flynn might have signaled to the Russians
that the Trump administration would have a different approach to foreign policy.
How dare Trump presume to tell an armed nuclear state to stand down because everyone in
Washington was in a state of psychological denial that he was elected?
Let's establish one thing early here: It is okay for an incoming administration to
communicate its foreign policy preferences during a transition even if they differ from the
lame duck administration .
.If anything, Flynn was too reserved in his conversation with the Russian ambassador. He
should have said, "President-elect Trump believes this Russian collusion thing is a fantasy
and these sanctions will be lifted on his first day in office."
That would have been perfectly legal. It also happens to be what FBI Director Comey and
the rest were hoping Flynn would do. They wanted to get a Trump official on tape making an
accommodation to the Russians.
The accommodation would then be cited to suggest a quid pro quo that proved the
nonexistent collusion. Instead, Flynn was uncharacteristically noncommittal in his
conversation with the ambassador. Drat!
They did have a transcript of what he said, though. This is where the tin-pot dictator
behavior of Comey is fully displayed. He invited Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI,
supposedly about Russian collusion to steal the election.
If you're Flynn, you say, "Sure, I want to tell you 15 different ways that there was no
collusion and when do you want to meet."
What Flynn did not know was that the purpose of the interview had nothing to do with the
election. It would be a test pitting Flynn's memory against the transcript.
Think about that for a moment. Comey did not need to ask Flynn what was said in the
conversation with the ambassador -- he had a transcript. The only reason to ask Flynn about
it was to cross him up.
That is the politicization of the FBI. It is everything Trump supporters rail against when
they implore him to drain the swamp. The inescapable conclusion is that the FBI set a trap
for the incoming national security advisor to affect the foreign policy of the newly elected
president.
Flynn made the mistake of not being altogether clear about what he had discussed with the
ambassador. In his defense, he did not believe he was sitting there to tell the FBI how the
Trump administration was dealing with Russia going forward. The conversation was supposed to
be about the election.
He certainly did not think the FBI would unmask his comments in a FISA wiretap and compare
them to his answers. That would be illegal.
Exhibit 5 to the DOJ's recent Motion to Dismiss the Flynn indictment confirms the Obama
administration's bad faith in listening in on his conversation with the ambassador. The
plotters admit , essentially,
that they looked at the transcript to see whether Flynn said anything that caused Russia to
stand-down. Had General Flynn promised to lift the sanctions, the Obama administration would
have claimed it was the pro quo that went with the quid of Putin's interference.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KeSHRR5bMr0
After Trump's inauguration, the FBI and Justice Department launched a special counsel
investigation that accepted, as a given, CrowdStrike's dubious conclusion that Russia had
interfered in the election. The only remaining question was whether Trump himself colluded in
the interference. There followed a two-year inquiry that did massive political damage to Trump
and the movement that put him in office.
Tucker Carlson rightly made Trey Gowdy squirm recently for Republican acquiescence in the shoddy
underpinnings of the Russia hoax. It was not only Gowdy, though. Establishment
politicians and
pundits have been all too willing for years to wallow in fabricated
Russian intrigue , at the expense of the Trump presidency.
This perfectly illustrates Republican perfidy: Gifted with undeserved victory in a
generational realignment that they were dragged to kicking and screaming, they proceed to
question its source and validity. Because if Trump was a product of KGB- esque intrigue, then
Hillary was a victim of meddling. Trump was a hapless beneficiary. The deplorables were not
only racist losers, they were also Putin's unwitting stooges.
As I first noted
in December 2016, the Washington establishment deliberately set out to fan Russian anxiety to
conduct war against the Trump administration. Perhaps it is time to admit that those of us
chided as " crazies
" who doubted Russian interference – including Trump
himself – were right all along.
In the after-action assessment of what went wrong, it should be noted that non-insiders are
the ones who have called this from the beginning, in places like
here ,
here ,
here , here
, and here . That
is partly what the president means when he Tweets support for his " keyboard warriors ." As
Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany pointed out on Friday, the
White House press corps has completely missed the story.
Thank you to all of my great Keyboard Warriors. You are better, and far more brilliant,
than anyone on Madison Avenue (Ad Agencies). There is nobody like you!
-- Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump) May 15,
2020
This scandal is huge, much bigger than Watergate, and compromising in its resolution is
destructive. If Republicans continue to stupidly concede phony
Russian intrigue , the plotters
will say they were justified to investigate it.
The recent CrowdStrike testimony drop ended any chance at middle ground. This was a rank
political operation and indicting a few FBI agents is not going to resolve anything.
CrowdStrike's circumstantial evidence that launched this probe is ridiculous. We'll soon
know if the Durham investigation has the will to defy powerful insiders of both parties and say
so.
Fantastic interview. all Obama gang should be prosecuted for their attempt of coup
d'état. Farkas behaviors looks like standard operating procecure for the neocon scum
That an effective but dirty trick on the part of this neocon prostitute Evelyn Farkas :
"Putin want me to lose, send me some money"
Farkas is running primarily for the same reason that Andy mccabes wife ran - so she can
pick up her payment from the dnc in the form of campaign contributions. It's money
laundering
Boom 12:03 Yes Saagar, that's what I
was hollering! This is far more insidious. There was NO ONE in power that believed birtherism
whereas the entire National Security apparatus pushed this bogus coup on the President. The
NSA, CIA, FBI, and media were all complicit. Do not let Krystal get away with a false
equivalence. She is bullshitting. Chuck Schumer even threatened Trump on national television
saying that the intelligence agencies have six ways til Sunday to take you down.
I wish Farcas had spent a bit more time talking on MSNBC , I'm sure she would have coughed
up more material. I would also like to see her texts and phone calls received after that a
appearance, I'm sure some Obama people were pulling their hair out as she was spilling the
whole scenario and called her immediately after.
Russiagate was built on the willingness of a lot of people to believe the worst about
Trump. That's it. Which honestly says more about the narrow-mindedness of Trump haters than
it does about Trump himself. Whatever Trump is or isn't, and I'm no Trump supporter though I
never got seduced into hating him, the one truth to come out of this is that his haters don't
care about evidence, or the rule of law, or even common sense.
If Russian interference was as de-stabilizing to our democracy as these people would have
led us to believe, then, how de-stabilizing would carelessly weaponizing it potentially be?
These people have no place in government or any form of public discourse. They are a
malignancy.
False flag operation by CIA or CrowdStrike as CIA constructor: CIA ears protrude above Gussifer 2.0 hat.
Notable quotes:
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC (using files that were really Podesta attachments) . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian breadcrumbs mostly came from deliberate processes & needless editing of documents . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian communications signals came from the persona choosing to use a proxy server in Moscow and choosing to use a Russian VPN service as end-points (and they used an email service that forwards the sender’s IP address, which made identifying that signal a relatively trivial task.) ..."
"... A considerable volume of evidence pointed at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones (twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones than anywhere else). ..."
"... The American timezones were incidental to other activities (eg. blogging , social media , emailing a journalist , archiving files , etc) and some of these were recorded independently by service providers. ..."
"... A couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had accompanying locale indicators that contradicted this which suggested the devices used hadn’t been properly set up for use in Russia (or Romania) but may have been suitable for other countries (including America) . ..."
"... On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18, 2016. ..."
"... The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange “may be connected with Russians”. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties. ..."
"... While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0 ..."
"... Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and maliciously maligned others? ..."
"... I believe Guccifer 2.0 was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/ ..."
Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability - suggest that
Assange “may be connected with Russians?”
In December, I reported on digital forensics evidence
relating to Guccifer 2.0 and highlighted several key points about the mysterious persona that Special Counsel Robert Mueller
claims was a front for Russian intelligence to leak Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks:
A considerable volume of evidence pointed at
Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones (twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer
2.0’s activities being in American timezones than anywhere else).
A couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had accompanying
locale indicators that contradicted this which suggested the devices used hadn’t been properly set up for use in Russia (or
Romania) but may have been suitable for other countries (including America).
On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to
use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks.
This article questions what Guccifer 2.0’s intentions were in relation to WikiLeaks in the context of what has been
discovered by independent researchers during the past three years.
Timing
On June 12, 2016, in an interview
with ITV’s Robert Peston, Julian Assange confirmed that WikiLeaks had emails relating to Hillary Clinton that the
organization intended to publish. This announcement was prior to any reported contact with Guccifer 2.0 (or with DCLeaks).
On June 14, 2016, an article was published
in The Washington Post citing statements from two CrowdStrike executives alleging that Russian intelligence hacked
the DNC and stole opposition research on Trump. It was apparent that the statements had been made in the 48 hours prior to
publication as they referenced claims of kicking hackers off the DNC network on the weekend just passed (June 11-12, 2016).
On that same date, June 14, DCLeaks contacted WikiLeaks via Twitter DM and for some reason suggested that both parties
coordinate their releases of leaks. (It doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks responded until September 2016).
[CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry testified under
oath behind closed doors on Dec. 5, 2017 to the U.S. House intelligence committee that his company had no evidence that Russian
actors removed anything from the DNC servers. This testimony was only released earlier
this month.]
By stating that WikiLeaks would “publish them soon” the Guccifer 2.0 operation implied that it had received
confirmation of intent to publish.
However, the earliest recorded communication between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks didn’t occur until a week later (June
22, 2016) when WikiLeaks reached out to Guccifer 2.0 and suggested that the persona send any new material to them
rather than doing what it was doing:
[Excerpt from Special Counsel Mueller’s report. Note: “stolen from the DNC” is an editorial insert by the special
counsel.]
If WikiLeaks had already received material and confirmed intent to publish prior to this direct message, why would
they then suggest what they did when they did? WikiLeaks says it had no prior contact with Guccifer 2.0 despite what
Guccifer 2.0 had claimed.
Here is the full conversation on that date (according to the application):
@WikiLeaks: Do you have secure communications?
@WikiLeaks: Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what
you are doing. No other media will release the full material.
@GUCCIFER_2: what can u suggest for a secure connection? Soft, keys, etc? I’m ready to cooperate with
you, but I need to know what’s in your archive 80gb? Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs?
If it’s not secret when you are going to release it?
@WikiLeaks: You can send us a message in a .txt file here [link redacted]
@GUCCIFER_2: do you have GPG?
Why would Guccifer 2.0 need to know what material WikiLeaks already had? Certainly, if it were anything Guccifer 2.0
had sent (or the GRU had sent) he wouldn’t have had reason to inquire.
The more complete DM details provided here also suggest that both parties had not yet established secure communications.
Further communications were reported to have taken place on June 24, 2016:
@GUCCIFER_2: How can we chat? Do u have jabber or something like that?
@WikiLeaks: Yes, we have everything. We’ve been busy celebrating Brexit. You can also email an encrypted
message to [email protected]. They key is here.
and June 27, 2016:
@GUCCIFER_2: Hi, i’ve just sent you an email with a text message encrypted and an open key.
@WikiLeaks: Thanks.
@GUCCIFER_2: waiting for ur response. I send u some interesting piece.
Guccifer 2.0 said he needed to know what was in the 88GB ‘insurance’ archive that WikiLeaks had posted on June 16,
2016 and it’s clear that, at this stage, secure communications had not been established between both parties (which would
seem to rule out the possibility of encrypted communications prior to June 15, 2016, making Guccifer 2.0’s initial claims about WikiLeaks even
more doubtful).
There was no evidence of WikiLeaks mentioning this to Guccifer 2.0 nor any reason for why WikiLeaks couldn’t
just send a DM to DCLeaks themselves if they had wanted to.
(It should also be noted that this Twitter DM activity between DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 is alleged by Mueller to be
communications between officers within the same unit of the GRU, who, for some unknown reason, decided to use Twitter DMs to
relay such information rather than just communicate face to face or securely via their own local network.)
Guccifer 2.0 lied about DCLeaks being a sub-project of WikiLeaks and then, over two months later, was seen trying to
encourage DCLeaks to communicate with WikiLeaks by relaying an alleged request from WikiLeaks that there is no
record of WikiLeaks ever making (and which WikiLeaks could have done themselves, directly, if they had wanted
to).
@GUCCIFER_2: hi there, check up r email, waiting for reply.
This was followed up on July 6, 2016 with the following conversation:
@GUCCIFER_2: have you received my parcel?
@WikiLeaks: Not unless it was very recent. [we haven’ t checked in 24h].
@GUCCIFER_2: I sent it yesterday, an archive of about 1 gb. via [website link]. and check your email.
@WikiLeaks: Wil[l] check, thanks.
@GUCCIFER_2: let me know the results.
@WikiLeaks: Please don’t make anything you send to us public. It’s a lot of work to go through it and the
impact is severely reduced if we are not the first to publish.
@GUCCIFER_2: agreed. How much time will it take?
@WikiLeaks: likely sometime today.
@GUCCIFER_2: will u announce a publication? and what about 3 docs sent u earlier?
@WikiLeaks: I don’t believe we received them. Nothing on ‘Brexit’ for example.
@GUCCIFER_2: wow. have you checked ur mail?
@WikiLeaks: At least not as of 4 days ago . . . . For security reasons mail cannot be checked for some
hours.
@GUCCIFER_2: fuck, sent 4 docs on brexit on jun 29, an archive in gpg ur submission form is too fucking
slow, spent the whole day uploading 1 gb.
@WikiLeaks: We can arrange servers 100x as fast. The speed restrictions are to anonymise the path. Just
ask for custom fast upload point in an email.
@GUCCIFER_2: will u be able to check ur email?
@WikiLeaks: We’re best with very large data sets. e.g. 200gb. these prove themselves since they’re too
big to fake.
@GUCCIFER_2: or shall I send brexit docs via submission once again?
@WikiLeaks: to be safe, send via [web link]
@GUCCIFER_2: can u confirm u received dnc emails?
@WikiLeaks: for security reasons we can’ t confirm what we’ve received here. e.g., in case your account
has been taken over by us intelligence and is probing to see what we have.
@GUCCIFER_2: then send me an encrypted email.
@WikiLeaks: we can do that. but the security people are in another time zone so it will need to wait some
hours.
@WikiLeaks: what do you think about the FBl’ s failure to charge? To our mind the clinton foundation
investigation has always been the more serious. we would be very interested in all the emails/docs from there. She set up
quite a lot of front companies. e.g in sweden.
@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll be waiting for confirmation. as for investigation, they have everything settled, or
else I don’t know how to explain that they found a hundred classified docs but fail to charge her.
@WikiLeaks: She’s too powerful to charge at least without something stronger. s far as we know, the
investigation into the clinton foundation remains open e hear the FBI are unhappy with Loretta Lynch over meeting Bill,
because he’s a target in that investigation.
@GUCCIFER_2: do you have any info about marcel lazar? There’ve been a lot of rumors of late.
@WikiLeaks: the death? [A] fake story.
@WikiLeaks: His 2013 screen shots of Max Blumenthal’s inbox prove that Hillary secretly deleted at least
one email about Libya that was meant to be handed over to Congress. So we were very interested in his co-operation with the
FBI.
@GUCCIFER_2: some dirty games behind the scenes believe Can you send me an email now?
@WikiLeaks: No; we have not been able to activate the people who handle it. Still trying.
@GUCCIFER_2: what about tor submission? [W]ill u receive a doc now?
@WikiLeaks: We will get everything sent on [weblink].” [A]s long as you see \”upload succseful\” at the
end. [I]f you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is
approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.
@GUCCIFER_2: ok. I see.
@WikiLeaks: [W]e think the public interest is greatest now and in early october.
@GUCCIFER_2: do u think a lot of people will attend bernie fans rally in philly? Will it affect the dnc
anyhow?
@WikiLeaks: bernie is trying to make his own faction leading up to the DNC. [S]o he can push for
concessions (positions/policies) or, at the outside, if hillary has a stroke, is arrested etc, he can take over the
nomination. [T]he question is this: can bemies supporters+staff keep their coherency until then (and after). [O]r will they
dis[s]olve into hillary’ s camp? [P]resently many of them are looking to damage hilary [sic] inorder [sic] to increase their
unity and bargaining power at the DNC. Doubt one rally is going to be that significant in the bigger scheme. [I]t seems many
of them will vote for hillary just to prevent trump from winning.
@GUCCIFER_2: sent brexit docs successfully.
@WikiLeaks: :))).
@WikiLeaks: we think trump has only about a 25% chance of winning against hillary so conflict between
bernie and hillary is interesting.
@GUCCIFER_2: so it is.
@WikiLeaks: also, it’ s important to consider what type of president hillary might be. If bernie and
trump retain their groups past 2016 in significant number, then they are a restraining force on hillary.
[Note: This was over a week after the Brexit referendum had taken place, so this will not have had any impact on the
results of that. It also doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks released any Brexit content around this time.]
On July 14, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to WikiLeaks, this was covered in the Mueller report:
It should be noted that while the attachment sent was encrypted, the email wasn’t and both the email contents and name of the
file were readable.
The persona then opted, once again, for insecure communications via Twitter DMs:
@GUCCIFER_2: ping. Check ur email. sent u a link to a big archive and a pass.
@WikiLeaks: great, thanks; can’t check until tomorrow though.
On July 17, 2016, the persona contacted WikiLeaks again:
@GUCCIFER_2: what bout now?
On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks responded and more was discussed:
@WikiLeaks: have the 1 Gb or so archive.
@GUCCIFER_2: have u managed to extract the files?
@WikiLeaks: yes. turkey coup has delayed us a couple of days. [O]therwise all ready[.]
@GUCCIFER_2: so when r u about to make a release?
@WikiLeaks: this week. [D]o you have any bigger datasets? [D]id you get our fast transfer details?
@GUCCIFER_2: i’ll check it. did u send it via email?
@WikiLeaks: yes.
@GUCCIFER_2: to [web link]. [I] got nothing.
@WikiLeaks: check your other mail? this was over a week ago.
@GUCCIFER_2:oh, that one, yeah, [I] got it.
@WikiLeaks: great. [D]id it work?
@GUCCIFER_2:[I] haven’ t tried yet.
@WikiLeaks: Oh. We arranged that server just for that purpose. Nothing bigger?
@GUCCIFER_2: let’s move step by step, u have released nothing of what [I] sent u yet.
@WikiLeaks: How about you transfer it all to us encrypted. [T]hen when you are happy, you give us the
decrypt key. [T]his way we can move much faster. (A]lso it is protective for you if we already have everything because then
there is no point in trying to shut you up.
@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll ponder it
Again, we see a reference to the file being approximately one gigabyte in size.
Guccifer 2.0’s “so when r u about to make a release?” seems to be a question about his files. However, it could have been
inferred as generally relating to what WikiLeaks had or even material relating to the “Turkey Coup” that WikiLeaks had
mentioned in the previous sentence and that were published by the following day (July 19, 2016).
The way this is reported in the Mueller report, though, prevented this potential ambiguity being known (by not citing the
exact question that Guccifer 2.0 had asked and the context immediately preceding it.
Four days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails.
Later that same day, Guccifer 2.0 tweeted: “@wikileaks published #DNCHack docs I’d
given them!!!”.
Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016.
Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18,
2016.
Guccifer 2.0’s emails to WikiLeaks were also sent insecurely.
We cannot be certain that WikiLeaks statement about making a release was in relation to Guccifer 2.0’s material and
there is even a possibility that this could have been in reference to the Erdogan leaks published by WikiLeaks on July
19, 2016.
Ulterior Motives?
While the above seems troubling there are a few points worth considering:
Guccifer 2.0’s initial claim about sending WikiLeaks material(and
that they would publish it soon) appears to have been made without justification and seems to be contradicted by
subsequent communications from WikiLeaks.
If the archive was “about 1GB” (as Guccifer 2.0 describes it) then it would be too small to have been all of the
DNC’s emails (as these, compressed, came to 1.8GB-2GB depending on compression method used, which, regardless, would be
“about 2GB” not “about 1GB”). If we assume that these were DNC emails, where did the rest of them come from?
Assange has maintained
that WikiLeaks didn’t publish the material that Guccifer 2.0 had sent to them. Of course, Assange could just be
lying about that but there are some other possibilities to consider. If true, there is always a possibility that Guccifer 2.0
could have sent them material they had already received from another source or other emails from the DNC that they didn’t
release (Guccifer 2.0 had access to a lot of content relating to the DNC and Democratic party and the persona also offered
emails of Democratic staffers to Emma Best, a self-described journalist, activist and ex-hacker, the month after WikiLeaks published
the DNC emails, which, logically, must have been different emails to still have any value at that point in time).
On July 6, 2016, the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was trying to get WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of DNC emails (and
on which Guccifer 2.0 agreed not to publish material he had sent them), the persona posted a series of files to his blog
that were exclusively DNC email attachments.
It doesn’t appear any further communications were reported between the parties following the July 18, 2016 communications
despite Guccifer 2.0 tweeting on August 12, 2016: “I’ll send the major trove of the
#DCCC materials and emails to #wikileaks keep following…” and, apparently, stating
this to The Hill too.
As there are no further communications reported beyond this point it’s fair to question whether getting confirmation of
receipt of the archive was the primary objective for Guccifer 2.0 here.
Even though WikiLeaks offered Guccifer 2.0 a fast server for large uploads, the persona later suggested he needed
to find a resource for publishing a large amount of data.
Despite later claiming he would send (or had sent) DCCC content to WikiLeaks,WikiLeaks never
published such content and there doesn’t appear to be any record of any attempt to send this material to WikiLeaks.
Considering all of this and the fact Guccifer 2.0 effectively covered itself in “Made In Russia” labels (by plastering
files in Russian metadata and choosing to use a
Russian VPN service and a proxy in Moscow for
it’s activities) on the same day it first attributed itself to WikiLeaks, it’s fair to suspect that Guccifer 2.0 had
malicious intent towards WikiLeaks from the outset.
If this was the case, Guccifer 2.0 may have known about the DNC emails by June 30, 2016 as this is when the persona first
started publishing attachments from those emails.
Seth Rich Mentioned By Both Parties
WikiLeaks Offers Reward
On August 9, 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted:
ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information
leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.
In an interview with Nieuwsuur that was posted the same day, Julian
Assange explained that the reward was for a DNC staffer who he said had been “shot in the back, murdered”. When the interviewer
suggested it was a robbery Assange disputed it and stated that there were no findings.
When the interviewer asked if Seth Rich was a source, Assange stated, “We don’t comment on who our sources are”.
When pressed to explain WikiLeaks actions, Assange stated that the reward was being offered because WikiLeaks‘
sources were concerned by the incident. He also stated that WikiLeaks were investigating.
Speculation and theories about Seth Rich being a source for WikiLeaks soon propagated to several sites and across
social media.
On that same day, in a DM conversation with the actress Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 claimed that Seth was his source (despite
previously claiming he obtained his material by hacking the DNC).
Why did Guccifer 2.0 feel the need to attribute itself to Seth at this time?
[Note: I am not advocating for any theory and am simply reporting on Guccifer 2.0’s effort to attribute itself to Seth
Rich following the propagation of Rich-WikiLeaks association theories online.]
Special Counsel Claims
In Spring, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was named to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. general
election, delivered his final report.
It claimed:
Guccifer 2.0 contradicted his own hacking claims to allege that Seth Rich was his source and did so on the same day that
Julian Assange was due to be interviewed by Fox News (in relation to Seth Rich).
No communications between Guccifer 2.0 and Seth Rich have ever been reported.
Suggesting Assange Connected To Russians
In the same conversation Guccifer 2.0 had with Robbin Young where Rich’s name is mentioned (on August 25, 2016), the
persona also provided a very interesting response to Young mentioning “Julian” (in reference to Julian Assange):
The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that
Assange “may be connected with Russians”.
Guccifer 2.0’s Mentions of WikiLeaks and Assange
Guccifer 2.0 mentioned WikiLeaks or associated himself with their output on several occasions:
July 22nd, 2016: claimed credit when WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks.
August 12, 2016: It was reported in The Hill that Guccifer 2.0 had released material to the publication. They
reported: “The documents released to The Hill are only the first section of a much larger cache. The bulk, the hacker
said, will be released on WikiLeaks.”
August 12, 2016: Tweeted that he would “send the major trove of the #DCCC materials
and emails to #wikileaks“.
September 15, 2016: telling DCLeaks that WikiLeaks wanted to get in contact with them.
October 4, 2016: Congratulating WikiLeaks on their 10th anniversary via
its blog. Also states: “Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!”. (This was the same day on which Guccifer
2.0 published his “Clinton Foundation” files that were clearly
not from the Clinton Foundation.)
October 17, 2016: via Twitter, stating “i’m here and ready for new releases.
already changed my location thanks @wikileaks for a good job!”
Guccifer 2.0 also made some statements in response to WikiLeaks or Assange being mentioned:
June 17, 2016: in response to The Smoking Gun asking if Assange would publish the same material it was
publishing, Guccifer 2.0 stated: “I gave WikiLeaks the
greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,”
August 22, 2016: in response to Raphael Satter suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 send leaks to WikiLeaks,the
persona stated: “I gave wikileaks a greater part of docs”.
August 25, 2016: in response to Julian Assange’s name being mentioned in a conversation with Robbin Young, Guccifer
2.0 stated: “he may be connected with Russians”.
October 18, 2016: a BBC reported asked Guccifer 2.0 if he was upset that WikiLeaks had “stole his thunder” and “do
you still support Assange?”. Guccifer 2.0 responded: “i’m
glad, together we’ll make America great again.”.
Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially
a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed
itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties.
Guccifer 2.0 then went on to lie about WikiLeaks, contradicted its own hacking claims to attribute itself to Seth Rich
and even alleged that Julian Assange “may be connected with Russians”.
While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get
leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer
2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious.
xxx 2 minutes ago (Edited)
Everything involving the Russian hoax was set up by the Deep States around the world.
Implicate, discredit and destroy all those like Rich, Assange, Flynn and those who knew the
truth. Kill the messenger....literally.
xxx 10 minutes ago
here's what really happened:
an American hacker breached Podesta's gmail on March 13 2016 and then uploaded it to
Wikileaks via Tor sometime between April and May.
the NSA and CIA have hacked into Wikileaks' Tor file server to watch for new leaks to stay
ahead of them to prepare. they saw Podesta's emails leaked and launched a counter infowar
operation.
Brennan's CIA created the Guccifer 2.0 persona, with phony Russian metadata artifacts,
using digital forgery techniques seen in Vault7. Crowdstrike was already on the premises of
DNC since 2015, with their overly expensive security scanner watching the DNC network.
Crowdstrike had access to any DNC files they wanted. CIA, FBI and Crowdstrike colluded to
create a fake leak of DNC docs through their Guccifer 2.0 cutout. they didn't leak any docs
of high importance, which is why we never saw any smoking guns from DNC leaks or DCLeaks.
you have to remember, the whole point of this CIAFBINSA operation has nothing to do with
Hillary or Trump or influencing the election. the point was to fabricate criminal evidence to
use against Assange to finally arrest him and extradite him as well as smear Wikileaks ahead
of the looming leak of Podesta's emails.
if CIAFBINSA can frame Assange and Wikileaks as being criminal hackers and/or Russian
assets ahead of the Podesta leaks, then they can craft a narrative for the MSM to ignore or
distrust most of the Podesta emails. and that is exactly what happened, such as when Chris
Cuomo said on CNN that it was illegal for you to read Wikileaks, but not CNN, so you should
let CNN tell you what to think about Wikileaks instead of looking at evidence yourself.
this explains why Guccifer 2.0 was so sloppy leaving a trail of Twitter DMs to incriminate
himself and Assange along with him.
if this CIAFBINSA entrapment/frame operation ever leaks, it will guarantee the freedom of
Assange.
xxx 11 minutes ago
According to Wikipedia, "Guccifer" is Marcel Lazar Lehel, a Rumanian born in 1972, but
"Guccifer 2.0" is someone else entirely.
Is that so?
xxx 20 minutes ago (Edited)
The guy from Cyrptome always asserted Assange was some type of deep state puppet, that he
was connected somehow. This wouldn't be news to me and its probably why he was scared as
hell. The guy is as good as dead, like S. Hussein. Seth Rich was just a puppet that got
caught in the wrong game. He was expendable obviously too because well he had a big mouth, he
was expendable from the beginning. Somebody mapped this whole **** out, thats for sure.
xxx 28 minutes ago
I am sick and tired of these Deep State and CIA-linked operations trying to put a wrench
in the prosecution of people who were engaged in a coup d'etat.
xxx 29 minutes ago
********
xxx 33 minutes ago
At this point what difference does it make? We are all convinced since 2016. It is not
going to convince the TDS cases roaming the wilderness.
No arrests, no subpoenas, no warrants, no barging in at 3 am, no perp walks, no tv
glare...
Pres. Trump is playing a very risky game. Arrest now, or regret later. And you won't have
much time to regret.
The swamp is dark, smelly and deep,
And it has grudges to keep.
xxx 37 minutes ago
Meanwhile- Guccifer 1.0 is still?
- In prison?
- Released?
- 48 month sentence in 2016. Obv no good behavior.
Nice article. Brennan is the dolt he appears.
xxx 41 minutes ago
+1,000 on the investigative work and analyzing it.
Sadly, none of the guilty are in jail. Instead. Assange sits there rotting away.
xxx 44 minutes ago
Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian
culpability - suggest that Assange "may be connected with Russians?"
Because the AXIS powers of the CIA, Brit secret police and Israeli secret police pay for
the campaign to tie Assange to the Russians...
A lot of interest in this story about Psycho Joe Scarborough. So a young marathon runner
just happened to faint in his office, hit her head on his desk, & die? I would think
there is a lot more to this story than that? An affair? What about the so-called
investigator? Read story!
xxx 45 minutes ago
Why make it harder than it is? Guccifer II = Crowdstrike
xxx 51 minutes ago
Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0
xxx 58 minutes ago (Edited)
Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and
maliciously maligned others?
xxx 1 hour ago
"His name was Seth Rich." The unofficial motto of ZeroHedge...
xxx 1 hour ago
James Guccifer Clapper.
xxx 1 hour ago
Mossad. And their subsidiary CIA.
xxx 1 hour ago
Crowd Strike CEO'S admission under oath that they had no evidence the DNC was hacked by
the Russians should make the Russian Hoax predicate abundantly clear.
Justice for Seth Rich!
xxx 1 hour ago
Any influence Assange had on the election was so small that it wouldn't move the needle
either way. The real influence and election tampering in the US has always come from the
scores of lobbyists and their massive donations that fund the candidates election runs
coupled with the wildly inaccurate and agenda driven collusive effort by the MSM. Anyone
pointing fingers at the Russians is beyond blind to the unparalleled influence and power
these entities have on swaying American minds.
xxx 1 hour ago
ObamaGate.
xxx 1 hour ago (Edited)
Uugh ONCE AGAIN... 4chan already proved guccifer 2.0 was a larp, and the files were not
"hacked", they were leaked by Seth Rich. The metadata from the guccifer files is different
from the metadata that came from the seth rich files. The dumb fuckers thought they were
smart by modifying the author name of the files to make it look like it came from a russian
source. They were so ******* inept, they must have forgot (or not have known) to modify the
unique 16 digit hex key assigned to the author of the files when they were created..... The
ones that seth rich copied had the system administrators name (Warren Flood) as the author
and the 16 digit hex key from both file sources were the same - the one assigned to warren
flood.
Really sloppy larp!!!
xxx 1 hour ago
This link has all the detail to show Guccifer 2.0 was not Russia. I believe Guccifer 2.0
was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to
WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/
xxx 1 hour ago
This is what people are. Now the species has more power than it can control and that it
knows what to do with.
What do you think the result will be?
As for these games of Secret - it's more game than anything truly significant. The
significant exists in the bunkers, with the mobile units, in the submarines. Et. al.
But this is a game in which some of the players die - or wish they were dead.
xxx 1 hour ago
And.....?
Public figures and political parties warrant public scrutiny. And didn't his expose in
their own words expose the democrats, the mass media, the bureaucracy to the corrupt frauds
that they are?
xxx 1 hour ago
Other than the fact that they didn't steal the emails (unless you believe whistleblowers
are thief's, one mans source is another mans thief, it's all about who's ox is being gored
and you love "leaks" don't you? As long as they work in your favor. Stop with the piety.
xxx 15 minutes ago
That's not the story at all. Did you just read this article?
The democrats were super duper corrupt (before all of this).
They fucked around to ice Bernie out of the primary.
A young staffer Seth Rich knew it and didn't like it. He made the decision to leak the
info to the most reputable org for leaks in the world Wikileaks.
IF the DNC had been playing fair, Seth Rich wouldn't have felt the need to leak.
So, the democrats did it to themselves.
And then they created Russiagate to cover it all up.
And murdered a young brave man ... as we know.
xxx 1 hour ago
Assange, another problem Trump failed to fix.
xxx 1 hour ago
Sounds like it came from the same source as the Trump dossier ... MI5.
While Flynn is a questionable figure with his Iran warmongering and the former tenure as a
Turkey lobbyist, it is important to understand that in Kislyak call he mainly played the role
of Israel lobbyist. This important fact was carefully swiped under the carpet by FBI
honchos.
Only the second and less important part of the call (the request to Russia to postpone the
reaction after the Obama expulsion of diplomats) was related to Russia. Not sure it was
necessary: Russia probably understood that this was a provocation and would wait for the dust
to settle in any case. Revenge is a dish that is better served cold. Later Russia used this
as a pretext to equalize the number of US diplomats in Russia with the number of Russian
diplomat in the USA which was a knockdown for any color revolution plans in this country:
people with the knowledge of the country and connections to its neoliberal fifth column were
sent packing.
But Russian neoliberal compradors were decimated earlier after EuroMaydan in Kiev, so this
was actually a service to the USA allowing to save the USA same money (as Trump
acknowledged)
Also strange how former chief of DIA fell victim of such a crude trap administered by a
second, if nor third rate person -- Strzok. Looks like he was already on the hook and, as
such, defenseless for his Turkey lobbing efforts. Which makes Comey-McCabe attempt to entrap
him look like a shooing fish in the tank.
Note to managerial class neoliberals (PMC). Your Russiagate stance is to be expected and
has nothing to do with virtue.
it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press --
the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story.
"... With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that is beginning
to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the Clinton Foundation
and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world order; and take down
a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because he is free to call them
out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has. ..."
"... Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled by
a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses. ..."
"... Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier). ..."
"... The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp. ..."
"... A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks
then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed the entire
volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days. ..."
"... Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller, he had tried to set Assange
up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait. ..."
Fascinating, important and ultimately deeply disturbing. This is why I come to Consortium News.
With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that
is beginning to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the
Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world
order; and take down a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because
he is free to call them out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has.
Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled
by a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses.
Anonymous , May 22, 2020 at 12:01
These convos alone look like a script kiddie on IRC doing their low functioning version of sock puppetry. Didn't know anyone
at all fell for that
Ash , May 22, 2020 at 17:21
Because smooth liars in expensive suits told them it was true in their authoritative TV voices? Sadly they don't even really
need to try hard anymore, as people will evidently believe anything they're told.
Bob Herrschaft , May 22, 2020 at 12:00
The article goes a long way toward congealing evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was a shill meant to implicate Wikileaks in a Russian
hack. The insinuation about Assange's Russian connection was over the top if Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be a GRU agent and the
mention of Seth Rich only contradicts his claims.
OlyaPola , May 22, 2020 at 10:40
Spectacles are popular.Although less popular, the framing and derivations of plausible belief are of more significance; hence
the cloak of plausible denial over under-garments of plausible belief, in facilitation of revolutions of immersion in spectacles
facilitating spectacles' popularity.
Some promoters of spectacles believe that the benefits of spectacles accrue solely to themselves, and when expectations appear
to vary from outcomes, they resort to one-trick-ponyness illuminated by peering in the mirror.
Skip Scott , May 22, 2020 at 08:35
This is a great article. I think the most obvious conclusion is that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation to smear wikileaks and distract
from the CONTENT of the DNC emails. The MSM spent the next 3 years obsessed by RussiaGate, and spent virtually no effort on the
DNC and Hillary's collusion in subverting the Sander's campaign, among other crimes.
I think back to how many of my friends were obsessed with Rachel Madcow during this period, and how she and the rest of the
MSM served the Empire with their propaganda campaign. Meanwhile, Julian is still in Belmarsh as the head of a "non-state hostile
intelligence service," the Hillary camp still runs the DNC and successfully sabotaged Bernie yet again (along with Tulsi), and
the public gets to choose between corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B in 2020.
Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier).
Guy , May 22, 2020 at 12:19
Totally agree .The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp.
I take it the mentioned time zones are consistent with Langley.
treeinanotherlife , May 22, 2020 at 00:34
"Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs?"
G2 is fishing to see if Wiki has DNC docs. Does not say "any DNC docs I sent you". And like most at time thought Assange's
"related to hillary" phrase likely (hopefully for some) meant Hillary's missing private server emails. For certain G2 is not an
FBI agent>s/he knows difference between HRC and DNC emails.
A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks
then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed
the entire volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days.
Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that Wikileaks had been processing those emails since at least June 12, when Assange announced
their impending publication. (I recall waiting expectantly for a number of weeks as Wikileaks processed the Podesta emails.) Wikileaks
was well aware that, if a single one of the DNC emails they released had been proved to have been fraudulent, their reputation
would have been toast. Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller,
he had tried to set Assange up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait.
Secondly, it is inconceivable that a journalist as careful as Julian would, on June 12th, have announced the impending publication
of documents he hadn't even seen yet. And of course there is no record of G2.0 having had any contact with Wikileaks prior to
that date.
It is a great pleasure to see "Adam Carter"'s work at long last appear in such a distinguished venue as Consortium News. It
does credit to them both.
Skip Edwards , May 22, 2020 at 12:33
How can we expect justice when there is no justification for what is being done by the US and British governments to Julian
Assange!
@Realist Quite right. I should have written that sentence differently in that by "like
Brennan," I meant an individual allowed to rise by obtaining compromising information on
everyone, most especially his intelligence colleagues.
Our system abhors such an arrogation of power or at least it used to. Not to put too fine
a point on it but that's what happens when you construct a surveillance state and then turn
it over to filth like Brennan.
This really isn't very complicated. It's utterly untenable in our great republic to have
the former CIA Director shouting every other day that the duly elected POTUS is treasonous
and much be removed from office by any means necessary.
It's impossible to overstate how serious this situation is when those who are needed on
the side of our republic and legitimate constitutional authority are distracting with squeaks
about Michael Ledeen's daughter no less.
I'm not laying this all at Brennan's door. Like Beria, his presence at the pinnacle of
power was more symptom than cause. He's no evil genius which, when you think about it, makes
the continued craven obedience to him by Democrats, RINO Republicans, Allied Media and, yes,
most who were in the IC, that much more pathetic.
A second Senate panel, the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina, is working on a similar timetable, with plans to issue a report before the November 3
presidential vote. It began Thursday to discuss subpoenas of former top Obama administration
and national security officials, with a vote set for June 4 to give Graham broad subpoena
power.
Graham has suggested he will call, among others, former FBI Director James Comey, his former
deputy Andrew McCabe, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA
Director John Brennan, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former White House Chief of
Staff Denis McDonough. At least initially, Graham has downplayed calls by Trump for issuing
subpoenas to Obama and Biden.
The initial focus of the Judiciary Committee will be the case of retired General Michael
Flynn, who resigned in February 2017 as Trump's national security adviser and later pled guilty
to lying to the FBI about his contacts with then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey
Kislyak.
Over the past month, the Flynn case has become the war cry of Trump and his ultra-right
backers at Breitbart News, Fox News and among congressional Republicans. They claim that Flynn
was the victim of a "perjury trap" set up by Comey at the instigation of Obama and Biden to
disrupt the incoming Trump administration.
Attorney General William Barr intervened to quash the sentencing of Flynn on perjury
charges, taking the unprecedented action of dropping prosecution on charges to which Flynn had
twice pled guilty before a federal judge. That judge, Emmett Sullivan, is now considering
whether to allow the dropping of the charges and has asked for outside groups to file
friend-of-the-court pleadings on the question.
The Senate investigations accelerated after a Tuesday meeting between Trump and leading
Senate Republicans, at which he demanded they "get tough" against the Democrats by issuing
subpoenas and holding televised hearings during the summer.
On the same day, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abandoned his previous reluctance to
hold such hearings, declaring that the Obama administration had used "the awesome power of the
federal government to pry into their political rivals."
"An American citizen's campaign for the American presidency was treated like a hostile
foreign power by our own law enforcement," he said, "in part because a Democrat-led executive
branch manipulated documents, hid contrary evidence, and made a DNC-funded dossier a launchpad
for an investigation."
... ... ...
The fall election campaign sparked an internal conflict within the FBI
between pro-Trump and pro-Clinton factions. On October 7, the "intelligence community" issued a
warning that Russia was seeking to intervene in the election on behalf of Trump. Then, on
October 29, Comey released his notorious letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the
FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary
of state. This unprecedented action, in violation of Justice Department rules against
interfering with an election, arguably tipped the outcome to Trump, given his narrow margins in
industrial states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
After Trump's surprise election victory, the attention of the intelligence agencies and the
Obama administration shifted to Flynn, Trump's top foreign policy aide and his choice to become
White House national security adviser. Obama warned Trump against naming Flynn, who had been
fired in 2014 as part of an internal conflict within the intelligence establishment, with
Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan pressing for his dismissal.
On December 29, 2016, Obama imposed stiff diplomatic sanctions on the Russian government,
expelling a large number of its representatives in the United States on the spurious grounds
that he was "retaliating" for Russian interference in the US presidential election. In fact,
there has never been any evidence that Russian actions consisted of anything more than
purchasing a few Facebook ads, for less than $100,000, trivial in comparison to the $5 billion
expended by the campaigns for Trump and Clinton.
Immediately after Obama's announcement of sanctions, Flynn called the Russian ambassador to
the United States, Kislyak, to urge the Putin government not to respond in kind, assuring him
that the incoming Trump administration would review the matter afresh. Such contacts are
routine during any transition between outgoing and incoming US administrations, but Flynn
apparently considered the content of the discussions to be politically embarrassing and lied
about them when interviewed by FBI agents.
On January 5, 2017, Obama and his closest aides were briefed by the intelligence agencies on
the anti-Russia investigation, on the eve of a similar briefing delivered to President-elect
Trump in New York City. It appears that Obama was less enthusiastic about the targeting of
Flynn than the security chiefs, including Clapper and Comey, and Flynn continued to receive
full briefings from the outgoing national security adviser, Susan Rice.
On January 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, a regular conduit for the
intelligence agencies, made public the December 29 Flynn-Kislyak phone call, touching off the
chain of events that led to Flynn's firing a month later. It is perhaps ironic, in view of the
current "Obamagate" campaign, that Ignatius voiced the then-common view in the "intelligence
community" that Obama was dragging his feet on the anti-Russia campaign. His column was
headlined, "Why Did Obama Dawdle on Russian Hacking?"
These apparently tactical differences led Comey to send FBI agents to the White House on
January 24, 2017 to interview Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak without notifying the
Department of Justice, in violation of the usual protocol, because Acting Attorney General
Sally Yates reportedly shared Obama's concern that too direct an attack on Flynn and Trump
might backfire.
Besides the various Senate investigations, the Department of Justice is conducting its own
review of the origins of the Russia investigation, which led ultimately to the appointment of
special counsel Robert Mueller. This review, headed by US Attorney John Durham, is expected to
include testimony under oath from the same set of former Obama aides who are to be subpoenaed
by the Senate.
FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Friday that he has ordered the bureau to conduct an
internal review of its handling of the probe into former national security adviser
Michael Flynn , which has led to his years long battle in federal court.
It's like the fox guarding the hen house.
Wray's decision to investigate also comes late. The bureau's probe only comes after numerous
revelations that former senior FBI officials and agents involved in Flynn's case allegedly
engaged in misconduct to target the three star general, who became
President Donald Trump's most trusted campaign advisor.
Despite all these revelations, Wray has promised that the bureau will examine whether any
employees engaged in misconduct during the court of the investigation and "evaluate whether any
improvements in FBI policies and procedures need to be made." Based on what we know, how can we
trust an unbiased investigation from the very bureau that targeted Flynn.
Let me put it to you this way, over the past year Wray has failed to cooperate with
congressional investigations. In fact, many Republican lawmakers have called him out publicly
on the lack of cooperation saying, he cares more about protecting the bureaucracy than exposing
and resolving the culture of corruption within the bureau.
Wray's Friday announcement, is in my opinion, a ruse to get lawmakers off his back.
How can we trust that Wray's internal investigation will expose what actually happened in
the case of Flynn, or any of the other Trump campaign officials that were targeted by the
former Obama administration's intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
It's Wray's FBI that continues to battle all the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act
requests regarding the investigation into Flynn, along with any requests that would expose
information on the Russia hoax investigation. One in particular, is the request to obtain all
the text messages and emails sent and received by former Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe.
The FBI defended itself in its Friday announcement saying that in addition to its own
internal review, it has already cooperated with other inquiries assigned by Attorney General
William Barr. But still Wray has not approved subpoena's for employees and others that
lawmakers want to interview behind closed doors in Congress.
The recent documented discoveries by the Department of Justice make it all the more
imperative that an outside review of the FBI's handling of Flynn's case is required. Those
documents, which shed light on the actions by the bureau against Flynn, led to the DOJ's
decision to drop all charges against him. It was, after all, DOJ Attorney Jeffery Jensen who
discovered the FBI documents regarding Flynn that have aided his defense attorney Sidney Powell
in getting the truth out to they American people.
Powell, like me, doesn't believe an internal review is appropriate.
"Wow? And how is he going to investigate himself," she questioned in a Tweet. "And how could
anyone trust it? FBI Director Wray opens internal review into how bureau handled Michael Flynn
case."
--
Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) May
22, 2020
Last week, this reporter published the growing divide between Congressional Republicans on
the House Judiciary Committee and Wray. The lawmakers have accused Wray of failing to respond
to numerous requests to speak with FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who along with former FBI
Special Agent Peter Strzok, conducted the now infamous White House interview with Flynn on Jan.
24, 2017.
Further, the lawmakers have also requested to speak with the FBI's former head of the
Counterintelligence Division ,
Bill Priestap, whose unsealed handwritten notes revealed the possible 'nefarious'
motivations behind the FBI's investigation of Flynn.
"Michael Flynn was wronged by the FBI," said a senior Republican official last week, with
direct knowledge of the Flynn investigation.
"Sadly
Director Wray has shown little interest in getting to the bottom of what actually
happened with the Flynn case. Wray's lackadaisical attitude is an embarrassment to the rank
and file agents at the bureau, whose names have been dragged through the mud time and time
again throughout the Russia-gate investigation. Wray needs to wake up and work with Congress.
If he doesn't maybe it's time for him to go. "
Powell argued that Flynn had pleaded guilty because his former Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, along with his prosecutors, threatened to target his son. Those prosecutors also
coerced Flynn, whose finances were depleted by his previous defense team. Mueller's team got
Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI about a phone conversation he had with the former
Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. However, the
agents who interviewed him did not believe he was lying.
Currently the DOJ's request to dismiss the case is now pending before federal Judge Emmet
Sullivan. Sullivan has failed to grant the DOJ's request to dismiss the case and because of
that Powell has filed a writ of mandamus to the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals seeking the
immediate removal of Sullivan, or to dismiss the prosecution as requested by the DOJ.
In the weeks before the 2016
presidential election, the most powerful former leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency did everything they could to elect
Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morrell published a
full-throated endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed “Putin ha[s] recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation,” while George W. Bush’s post-9/11 CIA and NSA Chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, writing in
the Washington Post, refrained from endorsing Clinton outright but echoed Morrell by accusing Trump of being a “useful fool,
some naif, manipulated by Moscow” and sounding “a little bit the conspiratorial Marxist.” Meanwhile, the intelligence community
under James Clapper and John Brennan fed
morsels to both the Obama DOJ and the US media to suggest a Trump/Russia conspiracy and fuel what became the Russiagate
investigation.
In his extraordinary election-advocating Op-Ed, Gen. Hayden, Bush/Cheney’s CIA Chief, candidly explained the reasons for the
CIA’s antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate’s stated opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to
expand as well as his opposition to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly “pro-Putin” positions
which, we are now all supposed
to forget, Obamalargely
shared).
As has been true since President Harry Truman’s creation of the CIA after World War II, interfering in other countries and
dictating or changing their governments — through campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the
abolition of democracy, systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots — is regarded as a divine right, inherent
to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump
was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA’s antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the primary
vector for anonymous, illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure
the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at least the first two years of Trump’s presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate
conspiracy theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the president-elect and the agency to
the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was
risking full-on subversion of his presidency by the agency:
Democrats, early in Trump’s presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump’s most devoted enemies, and thus began
viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign
policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal
celebrities by being hired
by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded
as news.
Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the US" opened up my eyes to how shameful our
history really is. The American Empire is no better then Great Britain, the very power this
country was supposed to rise above.
When a system is fully controlled by the big corporation/money every action and move must
serve it's master. Some are directly related to their immediate interest and some to prevent
any future challenge to it.
"...At CBS, we had been contacted by the CIA, as a matter of fact, by the time I became
the head of the news and public affairs division in 1954 shifts had been established ... I
was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them...." -- Sid Mickelson, CBS News
President 1954-61, describing Operation Mockingbird
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins, was a NYTimes best-seller about the
methods CIA use to dominate countries in Latin America and in Asia. John Perkins never was
interviewed by Us Media.
FBI was converted into free floating secret police free to investigate anybody.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, there is the infamous Strzok-Page SMS where Page states that the WH wants to know everything. This occurred MONTHS before January 4, 2017. ..."
"... Mike Flynn was eyeballs deep in conflicts of interest between his business and his national security role. ..."
"... part of the call was to ask Russia to veto a vote which should also be drilled into as they had not taken office yet and actively undermined a sitting government ..."
"... The FBI asked about the call because they wanted to leak it without revealing they had intercepted the communications of a incoming National Security Advisor. The call might have been perfectly normal and legal but given the Russia hysteria of the time it was perfectly usable as a smear. ..."
"... So they went in and ambushed Flynn without a lawyer to either get him on the record and leak it or better yet lie about it. Flynn didn't know how depraved the Obama administration had become and didn't imagine they had unmasked him and also couldn't believe they would dare entrap him like some criminal by asking him about a call they already had intercepted. That was his mistake. ..."
"... Obama is an armed terrorist at the behest of the CIA for a proxy war in Libya (North Africa) and Syria ..."
03: 45 - Well, there is the infamous Strzok-Page SMS where Page states that the WH wants
to know everything. This occurred MONTHS before January 4, 2017.
Glenn Greenwald is always delivering a well-thought and well-researched view on so many
important issues in this world. I may not share the same view on every issue with GG, but I
make a reasonable effort to find his insights at every opportunity. He is an absolute
pleasure to listen to, because he speaks with such clarity of thought and is clearly an
exceptional lawyer. It may well be too much to ask for...but journalism could use 100 more
Glenn Greenwald's.
Rising is really drinking the kool aid on this one. So many facts
about this case are being cherry picked to find a conspiracy. Mike Flynn was eyeballs deep in
conflicts of interest between his business and his national security role.
Let's also not
forget, he was fired by Trump because he lied to Mike Pence, not because the deep state
railroaded him in some way.
Completely agree that this was criminal and should be explored fully but be objective and
I heard about the story that part of the call was to ask Russia to veto a vote which should
also be drilled into as they had not taken office yet and actively undermined a sitting
government
The FBI asked about the call
because they wanted to leak it without revealing they had intercepted the communications of a
incoming National Security Advisor. The call might have been perfectly normal and legal but
given the Russia hysteria of the time it was perfectly usable as a smear.
So they went in and
ambushed Flynn without a lawyer to either get him on the record and leak it or better yet lie
about it. Flynn didn't know how depraved the Obama administration had become and didn't
imagine they had unmasked him and also couldn't believe they would dare entrap him like some
criminal by asking him about a call they already had intercepted. That was his mistake.
"... One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. ..."
"... But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill . ..."
"... With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake attack that they themselves had planned. ..."
"... 9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the conscience. ..."
"... For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty. ..."
"... While the nation's elite colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Some conservatives have called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the problem is not one man but an entire culture. ..."
"... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals. ..."
"... It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their bourgeois identitarian parlor game! ..."
"... J. Edgar Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so that they serve us instead of themselves. ..."
"... Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like Comey never get put in charge would be a good start. ..."
"... Remember in "Three Days of the Condor," when Robert Redford reacts scornfully to Cliff Robertson's use of the term "community"? ..."
"... Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. ..."
"... Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths. Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC. ..."
"... Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond in kind. ..."
"... Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized. Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians. While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is independent. ..."
"... Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard dirty tricks on him. ..."
"... It isn't just the FBI that uses dirty tactics. most police departments also use dirty tactics. ..."
"... As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal affairs. They are an evil organization. ..."
"... Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better someone like Comey. ..."
"... I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how powerful they are! ..."
Its constant abuses, of which Michael Flynn is only the latest, show what a failed
Progressive Era institution it really is. Fittingly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was founded by a grandnephew of
Napoleon Bonaparte, Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte, during the Progressive Era.
Bonaparte was a Harvard-educated crusader. As the FBI's official history states, "Many
progressives, including (Teddy) Roosevelt, believed that the federal government's guiding hand
was necessary to foster justice in an industrial society."
Progressives viewed the Constitution as a malleable document, a take-it-or-leave-it kind of
thing. The FBI inherited that mindset of civil liberties being optional. In their early years,
with the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, the FBI came into its
own by launching a massive domestic surveillance campaign and prosecuting war dissenters.
Thousands of Americans were arrested, prosecuted, and jailed simply for voicing opposition.
One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin
Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. The
FBI needlessly killed women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Anyone who has lived anywhere
near Boston knows of the Bureau's staggering corruption during gangster Whitey Bulger's reign
of terror. The abuses in Boston were so terrific that radio host Howie Carr declared that the
FBI initials really stood for "Famous But Incompetent." And then there's Richard Jewell, the
hero security guard who was almost railroaded by zealous FBI agents looking for a scalp after
they failed to solve the Atlanta terrorist bombing.
But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded
agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their
awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately
after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to
solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill .
With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting
troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press
conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake
attack that they themselves had planned.
9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most
recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish
anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the
conscience. After Jewell, Hatfill, Flynn, and so many others, it's time to ask whether the
culture of the FBI has become similar to that of Stalin's secret police, i.e. "show me the man
and I'll show you the crime."
I am no anti-law enforcement libertarian. In a previous career, I had the privilege to work
with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and they were some of the bravest
people I have ever met. And while the DEA can be overly aggressive (just ask anyone who has
been subjected to federal asset forfeiture), it is inconceivable that its agents would plot a
coup d'état against the president of the United States. The DEA sees their job as
catching drug criminals; they stay in their lane.
For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious
James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A
Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty.
They see themselves as
progressive guardians of the American Way, intervening whenever and wherever they see democracy
in danger. No healthy republic should have a national police force with this kind of culture.
There are no doubt many brave and patriotic FBI agents, but there is also no doubt they have
been very badly led.
This savior complex led them to aggressively pursue the Russiagate hoax. Their chasing of
ghosts should make it clear that the FBI does not stay in their lane. While the nation's elite
colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best
ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying
to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign.
Some conservatives have
called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the
problem is not one man but an entire culture. One possible solution is to break up the FBI into
four or five agencies, with one responsible for counterintelligence, one for counterterrorism,
one for complex white-collar crime, one for cybercrimes, and so on. Smaller agencies with more
distinctive missions would not see themselves as national saviors and could be held accountable
for their effectiveness at very specific jobs. It would also allow federal agents to develop
genuine expertise rather than, as the FBI regularly does, shifting agents constantly from
terrorism cases to the war on drugs to cybercrime to whatever the political class's latest
crime du jour might be.
Such a reform would not end every abuse of federal law enforcement, and all these agencies
would need to be kept on a short leash for the sake of civil liberties. It would, however,
diminish the ostentatious pretension of the current FBI that they are the existential guardians
of the republic. In a republic, the people and their elected leaders are the protectors of
their liberties. No one else.
One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly
strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals.
It's hard to believe it was only a decade ago when they were (correctly) deriding these
exact same people for their manifold failures relating to the War on Terror, but then again
left liberals at that time had not yet abandoned the pretense that they were something
other than a PMC social club.
It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to
disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining
a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their
bourgeois identitarian parlor game!
It's not the left liberals, it's the centrists and the neocons fleeing the Republican Party
like rats. The left never liked the FBI, never trusted them, with good reason.
J. Edgar
Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there
needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so
that they serve us instead of themselves.
Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like
Comey never get put in charge would be a good start.
Or put another way... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has
been the increasingly strong disdain of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term)
by far right conservatives.
Let's just be honest with ourselves - we really don't want intelligence, or science, or
oversight, unless it supports our team.
1. Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't
work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. This goes to guys like Mike
Flynn (former director of DIA), his predecessors and successors, and their peers across the
Intel(?) Community (that one kills me, too); the IC. Not to 'slight' anyone, but middle
management is no better, and probably, worse; everyone has to protect their own 'little
rice bowl' ya know.
2. Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor,
manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths.
Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put
them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC.
3. Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the
original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is
required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual
arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last
bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and
Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond
in kind.
The ICs are dog eat dog; LM are looking out for themselves...Period. Actually doing 'the
job' is pretty far down the TODO List. The vast majority of people in the 'trenches' are
just trying to get through the day; like LM, doing the 'right thing' is no longer the first
thought.
To make matters worse (if possible), MANY of those people in the trenches have
almost no clue WTF they are doing. This is because management involuntarily reassigns
people (SURPRISE!) to jobs for which they were not hired, have no qualifications, and,
often, no interest in becoming qualified. Of course, they hang on hoping that 'black swan'
will land and make everything right again.
We've had two major incidents (at least), in the last 20 years (9/11 and the Kung Flu)
that are specific failures of the IC (IMO). The IC failed (fails?) because Collaboratus,
Virtus, and Fides are just some words on a plaque; not goals for which to strive; lip
service is a poor substitute.
Yeah, these yahoos are overdue for a good house cleaning as well.
Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized.
Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians.
While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is
independent.
In order their men can do their "works", they also increased their authorities. Supposedly, FBI directors, once confirmed, will not change with president. In reality,
we saw presidents to replace old ones with their own.
It is not break up or whatever "reform". As long as presidents (regardless whom) can
choose their own, how can you expect FBI does its jobs stated by laws?
It is amazing how far people will let their political hatreds take them. The
FBI is actually more important for the services it provides police forces around America
than it is for solving federal crimes.
The FBI have been using dirty practices on people
for decades. Literally hundreds of people who are not criminals have written about this -
several of them are former agents who left in good standing.
They practice some of them
right out in the open, like leaking information about arrests to the press so that the
press get to film their arrests - sometimes timing arrests to hit local primetime new. It
even has a name - the prime time perp walk. Whether these people are convicted or not,
those images follow them for the rest of their lives. Or announcing that a person is "a
person of interest" to force cooperation, because they know that people hear "suspect" when
they hear such announcements. They will then offer to announce that the person is no longer
a person of interest in exchange for cooperation. It didn't deserve to be disbanded them.
Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard
dirty tricks on him. But since he was a minion of Donald Trump, the FBI should have
known that he was untouchable. That is their real wrongdoing here. But they didn't realize
it, so they should be disbanded. It is just like some progressives call for the disbandment
of ICE because it arrests illegal aliens.
This ignoramus reminds me of others of his kind who call for the disbandbandment of the
UN because they don't like the behavior of its General Council, its human rights or the
peace keeping agencies, completely oblivious of the critical services the dozens of
non-political UN agencies provide to all countries, especially to very small or under
developed ones. They call for the destruction of WHO because it kowtows to China no matter
that a number of countries in the world would have access to zero advanced health services
without it, and others who are less dependent, but find its services critical in
maintaining healthy populations. They find it politically objectionable so get rid of it! I
really hate how progressives throw around the words "entitled" and "privilege", but some
people do behave that way.
You can't go without the police though and a lot of what goes there can be reformed. Stop
treating them like an movie version of the military. Teach them to calm a situation instead
of shooting first, and realize you can treat them like an important part of society without
making them above the law.
As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and
not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal
affairs. They are an evil organization.
If conservatives are coming around to the idea that police corruption is a real thing, that
would be great. Somehow, I tend to doubt that it extends much beyond a way to protect white
collar and political corruption. I hope this is a turning point. The investigations into
Clinton emails didn't seem to warrant a mention here. Oh well.
That whole email situation was worthless. Not to say whether there was or was not an issue
but the investigation was nothing worthwhile and only resulted in complicating an already
messy election. Whether you believe there was a crime or not there there was nothing good
handled by that investigation.
Personally I'm more content with the Mueller investigation. Not the way everyone
panicked over it on both sides but what Mueller actually did himself: came in, researched
the situation, found out that while a good few people acted messy Trump himself wasn't
doing more than Twitter talk (yes it's technically "not enough evidence to prosecute", but
that is how we phrase "not guilty" technically: you prove guilt not innocence), stated that
Trump keeps messing himself up (aka "why did you ask your staff to claim one reason for a
firing then tell a different story on national TV idiot")..
Then ran for the hills as everyone screamed "impeach/witchhunt".
Though don't get me wrong: I'm not going to get on the way of any attempt to dismantle
the FBI or any of those other systems. It's something I really wish "small government"
actually meant.
And lets not forget that Russia warned the FBI about the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI did a
perfunctory investigation and dismissed the threat. They probably thought they were a
couple of poor Chechen boys persecuted by those evil Russians.
Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once
mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what
it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a
figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better
someone like Comey.
But, this is part of a pattern of Trump and his loyal followers (no Conservatives they)
assault on the Institutions. The FBI is insufficiently tamed by Billy Barr, so it must go.
(Part of the deep state swamp. /s).
Actually, there are very sound reasons for keeping the FBI, and even more for reforming
it. But since it was engaged in checking out Trump's minion, Flynn, it is bad, very bad,
incredibly bad, and must go. OTOH, if Comey had bent the knee to Trump, the FBI would be
the most tremendous force for good the country has ever seen.
But this essay must be seen as part of the background of attempted legitimization for
whatever Trump tweetstormed today. Perhaps the critics are right, and "conservatism is
dead". If so, it would be the proper thing to give it a decent burial and go on.
Because there is nothing about Donald John Trump which is the least Conservative, and it
is sickening to see people I once presumed to be "principled" line up at the altar of
Trumpism. You know he will not be satisfied until the country is renamed The United States
of Trump.
Now, all you Trumpublicans and Trumpservatives go downvote because I decline to abandon
Conservatism for Trumpworship,
I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn
to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how
powerful they are!
"... Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news . ..."
In his extraordinary election-advocating op-ed, Hayden, Bush/Cheney's CIA chief, candidly
explained the reasons for the CIA's antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate's stated
opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition
to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly "pro-Putin" positions
which, we are now all
supposed to forget,
Obama largely
shared ). As has been true since President Harry Truman's creation of the CIA after World
War II, interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments -- through
campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy,
systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots -- is regarded as a divine right,
inherent to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks
to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA's antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the
primary vector for anonymous illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent
and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at
least the first two years of Trump's presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate conspiracy
theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the
president-elect and the agency to the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was risking full-on
subversion of his presidency by the agency:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of
Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading
out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to
create new
foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish
confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security
officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being
hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a
virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news .
The all-consuming Russiagate narrative that dominated the first three years of Trump's
presidency further served to elevate the CIA as a noble and admirable institution while
whitewashing its grotesque history. Liberal conventional wisdom held that Russian Facebook ads,
Twitter bots and the hacking and release of authentic, incriminating
DNC emails was some sort of unprecedented, off-the-charts, out-of-the-ordinary
crime-of-the-century attack, with several leading Democrats (including Hillary Clinton)
actually
comparing it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor . The level of historical ignorance and/or jingostic
American exceptionalism necessary to believe this is impossible to describe. Compared to what
the CIA has done to dozens of other countries since the end of World War II, and what it
continues to do , watching Americans cast Russian interference in the 2016 election through
online bots and email hacking (even if one believes every claim made about it) as some sort of
unique and unprecedented crime against democracy is staggering. Set against what the CIA has
done and continues to do to "interfere" in the domestic affairs of other countries --
including Russia -- the 2016
election was, at most, par for the course for international affairs and, more accurately, a
trivial and ordinary act in the context of CIA interference. This propaganda was sustainable
because the recent history and the current function of the CIA has largely been
suppressed. Thankfully, a just-released book by journalist Vincent Bevins -- who
spent years as a foreign correspondent covering two countries still marred by brutal
CIA interference: Brazil for the Los Angeles Times and Indonesia for the Washington Post --
provides one of the best, most informative and most illuminating histories yet of this agency
and the way it has shaped the actual, rather than the propagandistic, U.S. role in the
world.
Entitled "The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program
that Shaped Our World," the book primarily documents the indescribably horrific campaigns of
mass murder and genocide the CIA sponsored in Indonesia as an instrument for destroying a
nonaligned movement of nations who would be loyal to neither Washington nor Moscow. Critically,
Bevins documents how the chilling success of that morally grotesque campaign led to its being
barely discussed in U.S. discourse, but then also serving as the foundation and model for
clandestine CIA interference campaigns in multiple other countries from Guatemala, Chile, and
Brazil to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Central America: the Jakarta Method.
Our newest episode of SYSTEM UPDATE, which debuts today at 2:00 p.m. on The Intercept's YouTube channel , is
devoted to a discussion of why this history is so vital: not just for understanding the current
international political order but also for distinguishing between fact and fiction in our
contemporary political discourse. In addition to my own observations on this topic, I speak to
Bevins about his book, about what the CIA really is and how it has shaped the world we still
inhabit, and why a genuine understanding of both international and domestic politics is
impossible without a clear grasp on this story.
This, as did the Greenwald
YouTube the other day, puts together a coherent Flynn narrative. Here is a snippet: "Compare
Flynn's treatment to McCabe's. Flynn was humiliated and bankrupted for allegedly lying to Pence
and FBI agents over a phone call that advanced U.S. interests.
Meanwhile, the Justice
Department inspector general found in 2018 that McCabe "knowingly provided false information"
in three separate interviews during an investigation into self-serving leaks published by the
Wall Street Journal about an aborted investigation into the Clinton Foundation in 2016.
That
report also found that McCabe admonished more junior FBI agents for the leaks that he himself
had authorized. Today, McCabe is a contributor at CNN. His opinions are still taken seriously
at places like the esteemed Lawfare website. He remains in the good graces of the Trump
resistance." \
This doesn't look good for the Obama Alumni Association (which, horridly,
is a real thing ).
In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI offered to pay former British spy
Christopher Steele "significantly" for collecting intelligence on Michael Flynn, according to
the
Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
The FBI's proposal - made during an October 3, 2016 meeting in an unidentified European
city, and virtually ignored by the press - has taken on new significance in light of recent
documents exposing how the Obama administration targeted Flynn before and after president
Trump's upset victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The inspector general's report, released on Dec. 9, 2019, said that FBI agents offered to
pay Steele "significantly" to collect intelligence from three separate "buckets" that the
bureau was pursuing as part of Crossfire Hurricane , its counterintelligence probe of four
Trump campaign associates.
One bucket was "Additional intelligence/reporting on specific, named individuals (such as
[Carter Page] or [Flynn]) involved in facilitating the Trump campaign-Russian relationship,"
the IG report stated.
FBI agents also sought contact with "any individuals or sub sources" who Steele could
provide to "serve as cooperating witnesses to assist in identifying persons involved in the
Trump campaign-Russian relationship."
Steele at the time had provided the FBI with reports he compiled alleging that members of
the Trump campaign had conspired with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. -
Daily Caller
Of note, Steele was promoting a discredited rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with
Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian-British academic who studied at the University of Cambridge. This
rumor was amplified by the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian in March, 2017.
According to the Inspector General's report, the FBI gave Steele a "general overview" of
their Crossfire Hurricane probe - including their efforts to surveil Trump campaign aides
George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, along with Paul Manafort and Flynn. In fact - some FBI
agents questioned whether the lead agent told Steel too much about the operation , according to
the IG report.
In recent weeks, the release of two documents raise questions about potential links between
the FBI's request of Steele and the Lokhova rumor .
One of the documents is a transcript of longtime John McCain associate David Kramer's
interview with the House Intelligence Committee. Kramer testified on Dec. 17, 2017,
that Steele
told him in December 2016 that he suspected that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a
Russian woman .
"There was one thing he mentioned to me that is not included here, and that is he believed
that Mr. Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the U.K .," Kramer told
lawmakers.
Kramer said that Steele conveyed that Flynn's alleged mistress was a "Russian woman" who
"may have been a dual citizen."
An FBI
memo dated Jan. 4, 2017, contained another allegation regarding Flynn and a mysterious
Russian woman.
The memo, which was provided to Flynn's lawyers on April 30, said that an FBI confidential
human source (CHS) told the bureau that they were present at an event that Flynn attended
while he was still working in the U.S. intelligence community . -
Daily Caller
Lokhova and Flynn have denied the rumors - with Lokhova's husband telling the Daily Caller
News Foundation that he picked his wife up after the Cambridge dinner where an FBI informant
said they 'left together in a cab.'
Meanwhile, a DIA official who was at the Cambridge event with Flynn also told the WSJ in
March 2017 that there was nothing inappropriate going on between Flynn and Lokhova.
Here is the bottomline in a nutshell--Susan Rice has been caught red handed trying to
construct a lie about what Barack Obama knew and did not know with respect to General Michael
Flynn. She claimed to be present when Barack Obama discussed the Michael Flynn intercept but,
according to Sally Yates, who was interviewed by the FBI, only Yates, Jim Comey and Barack
Obama were present. This new revelation--made possible by the declassification of the Susan
Rice email written in the last moments of the Obama Administration--actually bolsters Michael
Flynn's contention that he was the victim of a political hit job designed to take out Donald
Trump.
With every new revelation about what President Trump calls "Obamagate," you see the curtain
being torn down and revealing the corrupt players who were running America and attacking our
Republic.
Former CIA Officer and counter-terrorism expert Kevin Shipp, who wrote a book about the Deep
State called "From the Company of Shadows," says any hint that POTUS is a tool of the Deep
State is preposterous.
Shipp explains, "That is absolutely ridiculous..."
" Donald Trump has confronted the Shadow Government and Deep State more than any other
president in history, and that includes JFK. JFK did, of course, confront the Deep State and
we saw what happened there.
There has been no other president that has had the guts to expose the Shadow Government
and Deep State like Donald Trump has. What has the Deep State done? They have gone after him
with a vengeance. Why would the Deep State attack their own with attacks to try to destroy
him and his family if he wasn't threatening to expose the Deep State? No, he's not a Deep
State president. He's not perfect. We all know that. There are members of his cabinet that we
are concerned about with connections to some of the central banks. We all know that, but
Donald Trump is not Deep State. He is splitting the Deep State wide open.
Look what DNI Rick Grenell just presented to the President. He authorized for release of
names of all the unmaskers. Trump is exposing the Deep State, and, personally, I am proud of
him because I have been waiting for this for 20 years for a president to come out and expose
these things ."
On the virus crisis, Shipp says it's turned into a political weapon for the Left. Shipp
contends, "They (Democrats) want to delay any solution to the Coronavirus until the election so
they can keep the economy ruined and point the finger at Donald Trump..."
" That's one of the things they want to do. They also want mail-in ballots because that is
one of the easiest ways to engage in election fraud. There is a report that just came out
that people are getting mail-in ballots that already have the Democrat party checked on the
box when they open it up, and they are not Democrats.
You better believe they are going to try to engage in voter fraud using mail-in ballots.
There is no doubt about it because they are going to lose badly, and they know it. So, they
have to do that. You bet."
The Democrats in the House are going to try, once again, to impeach President Trump for
Russian collision. Recently released documents show it was a proven total hoax that they made
up, and, yet, the Dems are going to try this again before the 2020 election. What's going on?
Shipp says,
" This is the last gasp of Democrat Congressional tyrants trying one last time to remove
this elected President. It's laughable...
What this is, is desperation on the part of Pelosi and Schumer. This is desperation on
their part knowing that the whole thing was disproven and shot down by the evidence. If Trump
gets elected a second time, you will see investigations into Congress, Senate, Obamagate and
China. These people are desperate to keep that stuff from coming out.
You think President Trump is exposing them now? You wait until he gets elected a second
time. That's why they are so terrified, and they are trying everything they can to keep him
from being elected."
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with CIA whistleblower Kevin
Shipp.
Obama & his band of corrupt, lying, manipulating, seditious, malevolent, lawless
criminals, who are still running loose, back in the WH ... Above the law_ Perkins Coie Law
Firm, Fusion GPS (Glenn Simpson) Christopher Steele, Stefan Harper, Josef Mifsud, Alexander
Downer, Alexandra Chalupa, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weismann, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Peter
Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Joe Pientka, ... Obama, Biden, Crooked Hillary,
Wingman Eric Holder, Tarmac Loretta Lynch, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Valerie
Jarrett, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Sally Yates, section data-role="main"
data-tracking-area="main"
It was all A LIE ( as in SLANDER) all made up by Obama...I hope Flynn sues that POS for
everything his owns section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
Attack the guy who asks the questions. I understand. It's hard to believe they were this
dishonest to begin with. Covering it up after the fact with lame emails is so Nixonian. But
then again, Rice has a history of lying about history. Remember the Sunday propaganda parade
she ran regarding the Benghazi coverup. Squirrels do not give birth to eagles as they say.
You are what your history says you are.
You lying coward. They all spoke under oath at the Schiff clown show. So did Comey, Clapper
and Brennan. They all said no collusion under oath . Flynn a decorated general was destroyed
by career bureaucrats that only serve themselves. Obama encouraged it at the least. Directed
it at its worst. Shameful. section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
Yes you are sorry. Defending a coup by a bunch of unelected burecrats over politics. Get a
better candidate and win an election. Maybe do a little party analysts on how you lost middle
America that's what I am talking about. Partisan hacks like yourself are as introspective as
a dung beatle. You do what you do in sh!t created by others and don't question why.
Was it Crowdstrike that had shown her the forensics data? This McCarthyist dog just keeps lying and keeps digging. The Obama administration
was as shameless as they were crooked.
"They all sound like kids that got caught raiding the cookie jar making up wild tales of innocence with cookie crumbs all over their
faces."
Notable quotes:
"... Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable... ..."
"... (((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals." ..."
"... Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher. ..."
...Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts
have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative
outlets which have called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that right-wing pundits began pumping
accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up.
Within a day, Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter accounts boosting attacks have posted in
unison, a sign of inauthentic social media behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the largest, most divisive hoax in US
history - which was based on faulty intelligence that includes CrowdStrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrAToZ, 1 minute ago
What's with the bug eyes on these crooks?
Kurpak, 27 seconds ago
Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable...
It makes you look ******* insane.
iAmerican10, 8 minutes ago (Edited)
(((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless
herd of cattle, sub-human animals."
... ... ...
otschelnik, 35 minutes ago
Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who
has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us.
Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher.
The crux of Russiagate is that it's a political scandal masquerading as a criminal one.
The interminable scandal has been back in the news this past week thanks to the Trump
Department of Justice's decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn. Flynn was once briefly
Trump's national security advisor before being fired and then charged with lying to the FBI
over a phone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential
transition. Last Thursday , the House Intelligence Committee finally released
fifty-seven transcripts of closed-door interviews it conducted with various key players in
the saga over 2017 and 2018, covering Flynn's call with Kislyak and other matters.
Since the news dropped, every effort has been made to turn Flynn's absolution into the
latest Trump outrage. Barack Obama himself weighed in, charging in a
leaked phone call with supporters that "there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone
who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free," and that the "rule of law is at
risk."
Four years into this chaotic and reactionary presidency, there are more than enough
legitimate Trump scandals to go around. But as with many things Russiagate, both the Flynn case
and the release of the transcripts reflect far more poorly on the Obama administration,
American's hallowed national security institutions, and the anti-Trump "Resistance."
Understanding why requires going all the way back to 2016 and the beginnings of the Flynn
case. Flynn was a former intelligence official pushed out of the Obama administration over,
among other things, his
management style . Years later, he became a
characteristically weird Trump guy: a heterodox foreign policy thinker who combined
occasional opposition to endless war with conspiratorial Islamophobia, and became nationally
known for flirting with the
"alt-right" and chanting "Lock her up!" at the 2016 RNC.
Flynn's loyalty to Trump was rewarded that year when he was announced as the
president-elect's national security advisor. At the same time, Flynn had, like many in Trump's
orbit, been investigated by the FBI over whether he was Kremlin agent, and only further raised
hackles after it was
leaked that he had spoken to Kislyak the same day that Obama ordered
sanctions and expelled thirty-five Russian embassy officials as retaliation for Russia's
interference in that year's election.
Flynn was, at first,
pushed out by Trump when it turned out he had caused Vice President Mike Pence to
unwittingly lie about the contact. He was then later charged by Robert Mueller and his team in
the course of the "collusion" probe with lying to the FBI (not, as Obama claimed, perjury),
which at the time was cause
for much speculation
: it was the umpteenth "beginning of the end" of Trump's presidency but ultimately produced no
new revelations about a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Now, he's been allowed to skip a maximum of
five years in jail and walk away "scot-free," as Obama put it.
But through it all and since, details have trickled out that have made the entire saga far
less clear-cut than those most invested in the "collusion" narrative would have the public
believe. For one, despite all the innuendo around Flynn's Russian contacts and his sitting next
to Putin at a dinner, investigators found nothing unseemly when looking into Flynn and had
all but closed their
investigation into him when the news about the Kislyak call broke.
Secondly, the charge Flynn was ultimately slapped with, lying to the FBI, now looks more
like a case of entrapment. Recently released
notes written by Bill Priestep
, former FBI counterintelligence director, prior to interviewing Flynn about the Kislyak call
suggest the Bureau was looking at the option to "get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get
him fired." In the notes, Priestep wrote that "I believe we should rethink this," that simply
showing Flynn evidence so he could admit wrongdoing wasn't "going easy on him" and was routine
FBI practice, and that "if we're seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious," so
they should "protect our institution by not playing games."
What's more,
contemporaneous notes show that the investigators themselves weren't sure Flynn had
intentionally lied to them, and that Comey himself had said so in a March 2017 briefing, before
claiming he had never said anything of the sort after being fired by Trump.
There were further improprieties in the investigation. Flynn has claimed, with some
evidence , that the FBI pressured him to sit down for the interview without a lawyer.
Additionally, two years ago, Comey himself
admitted that he had violated protocol by sending investigators to interview Flynn without
going through the White House counsel, calling it "something I probably wouldn't have done or
maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration."
Things get worse when one goes through the
Mueller team's interview notes for then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates and Mary
McCord, another DoJ official and both Obama appointees. To the surprise of Yates -- who
insisted the White House needed to be informed Flynn had misled them, given it put him in a
potentially compromising position -- Comey repeatedly refused to notify the White House, and
the FBI's reasons for not doing so "morphed" over the course of discussion. Yates and her team
were then "flabbergasted," "dumbfounded," and "hit the roof" when they learned Comey had sent
agents to interview Flynn without informing her, believing it should have been coordinated with
the DoJ.
After this, Mueller's prosecutors coerced Flynn into pleading guilty by
bankrupting him and
threatening to go after his son , not unlike the
treatment visited upon government whistleblowers under the Obama administration. Through it
all, there was the fact that Flynn had never actually committed any underlying crime by talking
to Kislyak -- not to mention the fact that Mueller himself debunked the entire Russiagate
conspiracy theory -- making his false statements to the FBI technically criminal, but
irrelevant.
The backdrop to all of this is the FBI's staggering misconduct in spying on the Trump
campaign in 2016. As last year's report from the DoJ inspector general
revealed , the Bureau repeatedly misrepresented or left out evidence, and even used
outright false claims to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page, a businessman and sometime-CIA asset with ties to Russia who advocated for
business-minded co-operation between the two countries.
In light of all of this, Russiagate looks less like a righteous crusade for truth and
justice and more like the typical
shenanigans for which the FBI and US government have long been known: prosecutorial
overreach, entrapment, and the criminalization of foreign policy dissent. Trump's grotesqueries
have has made it impossible for many liberals to acknowledge this fact. But the fact that the
FBI's misconduct was aimed at a right-wing government this time should be no reason for
Democrats to dismiss the magnitude of the scandal.
In fact, the Intelligence Committee transcripts reveal the extent to which it was
ideological opposition to, or simply political disagreement with, the incoming administration
over foreign policy that drove suspicion of a Trump-Russia conspiracy.
"Maybe I'm
Biased"
Despite the insistence of anti-Trump media, "collusion" was never crime. Even former Obama
officials alarmed by Trump's apparent closeness to the Kremlin acknowledged as such behind
closed doors.
"Collusion is a word that's been used out in the public to refer to this investigation,"
McCord
told the intelligence committee. "It's, of course, not a crime itself."
But you didn't need the testimony of Democratic officials to know this. If "colluding" with
a foreign power to win an election was a crime, then it was one both Hillary Clinton and Mitt
Romney were guilty of in 2016 and 2012, respectively.
To defeat Trump in 2016, the Democratic Party teamed up with the Ukrainian government, which
viewed a Clinton presidency -- with its
controversial preference for sending
weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia -- as most favorable to its interests. Though widely reported
at the time , Ukraine's 2016 election meddling was retrospectively transformed into a
made-up conspiracy theory when it became inconvenient to the Russiagate narrative.
Meanwhile, the
open support for Romney from a sitting Israel prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, just
eight years ago, though controversial
at the time , has similarly disappeared down a memory hole. That's not even to get into
George W. Bush's closeness to a Saudi
official heavily
complicit in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
When all was said and done, Trump's run-in with the Kremlin hasn't come close to the level
of intimacy and co-ordination with a foreign government seen in any of these examples.
No, Trump and his team's real crime was that they crossed the Washington foreign policy
consensus and violated government norms, all in the service of attempting to improve relations
with the wrong foreign government -- in this case, one deemed an official adversary. See
this
exchange between Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) and former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper, one of the former spy chiefs who has repeatedly claimed Trump was in the
Kremlin's thrall on cable news (emphasis mine):
ROONEY: I mean, I guess the point is on the question is, is at what time is collusion
collusion, and at what time is it just people that may have an affiliation with the campaign
meeting or talking with, whether it be the Russian ambassador on somebody that's of Russian
origin, and when should that be taken as something that rises to the level of an Intelligence
Community concern?
CLAPPER: That's a great question, and I asked -- I really can't answer it other than the
sort of visceral reaction to why all these meetings with the Russians . They are what I
consider are an existential threat to this country, a country that is not interested in
furthering our interests, certainly on cooperating with us. Maybe I'm biased. You know, I'm a
Cold War warrior and all that , but -- so that was of concern to me.
At another point, Clapper -- who had earlier said that election interference is "almost
genetic with" Russians, and that the 2016 interference had "viscerally affected me like nothing
I've even experienced since I got in the intel business in 1963" -- recalled briefing the
president-elect about the Kremlin's interference:
I would say it was a professional exchange. He got off on wouldn't it be great if we could
get along with the Russians? I said, yeah, sure, if we found some convergence of our
interests. But I'm in the 'trust but verify' camp when it comes to Russia. I mean, maybe I've
just been around too long.
Or as Clapper put it at another point: "I have a very jaundiced view of dealing with the
Russians."
Such thinking pervaded the mindset of other Obama officials. See Obama speechwriter and
foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes'
reaction to the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting (emphasis mine):
l was absolutely shocked. I can tell you I worked on a presidential campaign in 2007-2008.
I was one of the principal foreign policy staffers on that campaign. I would have no reason
to ever meet with any Russians . The notion of, you know, David Plouffe, David Axelrod, and
Valerie Jarrett meeting with the Russian Government would have been literally unthinkable in
the context of our campaign. And the leadership of a campaign's time is their most precious
commodity, and the fact that they felt it a worthy investment of time to sit down with
representatives of the Russian government was absolutely astonishing to me , and went far
beyond, frankly, any degree of interaction that I would have even guessed at.
Of course, much of the outrage over the Trump Tower meeting arose from the fact that the
Trump campaign was trying to get dirt on their opponent from a foreign government (the same
thing, incidentally, the Democratic Party actually did in 2016
with the Ukrainian government ). But quite apart from that, Rhodes here is scandalized
specifically by the idea the campaign would simply sit down with representatives of the
Russian government.
As Rhodes would later admit, he and other Obama campaign officials did communicate with
foreign governments during the 2008 campaign and the transition, only they happened to be "a
very small number of friendly governments to the United States." Rhodes tacitly acknowledges
there's nothing inherently wrong with a campaign meeting with or communicating with a foreign
government -- the issue for him is which foreign government , a fundamentally political
question.
Here's Yates
responding to a question from Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) about whether "incoming
administrations or people on their behalf never have contact with representatives of foreign
governments" (emphasis mine):
YATES: No. I don't think that that was anybody's sense there, that you would never have
any contact. I think what – as they described it to me, what seemed different about
this was that he was having conversations with the Russians attempting to influence their
conduct now during this administration, and that that would be unusual and troubling.
HECK: And –
YATES: And it also -- given that it was the Russians, there's sort of an extra concern
there as well.
Or
here's Obama's outgoing national security advisor recalling her conversations during the
transition period with Flynn, the man set to replace her:
We did talk about Russia as an adversary, as a threat to NATO. But, frankly, we spent a
lot more time talking about China in part because General Flynn's focus was on China as our
principal overarching adversary. He had many questions and concerns about China. And when I
elicited -- sought to elicit his perspective on Russia, he downplayed his assessment of
Russia as a threat to the United States. He called it overblown. He said they're a declining
power, they're demographically challenged, they're not really much of a threat, and then
reemphasized the importance of China.
Flynn's factual points about Russia, by the way, are all objectively true . But
as Rice went on to say, she "had seen enough at that point and heard enough to be a little bit
sensitive to the question of the nature of General Flynn's engagements with the Russians," and
so she declined to brief Flynn on Russia policy in the fullest detail, figuring he would be
fully briefed once he officially took office.
Like Rhodes, Rice conceded that "it was normal, customary to have contacts with the
governments of friendly countries" during a transition, as Obama's did with the "British,
French, Germans, NATO allies, Asian allies."
"It was not normal," she said, "to have contacts with adversarial governments during a
transition."
Rather than breaching any kind of legal standard, the common complaint among these officials
was that Trump and his team had violated the norm or precept of "one government at a time":
that even though the Trump administration was coming in, Obama and his team were still in the
driver's seat, and it was inappropriate to step on their toes. Flynn's decision to do the
opposite may have been unwise -- but was it really an acceptable basis for everything that
followed?
It's clear that the chaos, dysfunction, and sheer weirdness of Trump's campaign and budding
presidency contributed to deepening suspicion of him and his team. But it's also clear that
this suspicion was more than a little animated by what was essentially a political disagreement
over whether Russia is a US adversary, and if it should be treated as such via official
policy.
Such a question might sound absurd to some ears. But outside the Beltway there are vast
swaths of the US political spectrum where such foreign policy positions are contested: on
relations with Iran and China, for instance, or the efficacy of the "war on terror" -- issues
on which opposing views have often been deemed dangerous, suspect, or even treasonous by one
side or another.
Rice herself declared at the end of her testimony, as she complained about Trump's praise
for WikiLeaks, that "the rest of us, everybody in this room, knew that WikiLeaks was our
adversary." Yet in 2010, when the Obama administration was aggressively going after this
"adversary," the public was
evenly split on whether Wikileaks had "served" or "harmed" the "public interest" -- with 57
percent of young people holding the former view. Just because Rice and the rest of the national
security state viewed the organization as an adversary doesn't make it an objective fact.
And let's not forget the ongoing, total silence over the US government's decades-long
friendly relationship with "allies" like Saudi Arabia, whose government officials were involved
not in releasing embarrassing information about American policymakers, but a terrorist attack
that killed thousands.
"A Debating Weapon Against the Opposition"
Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of Trump's
ultimately aborted attempt to re-forge a friendly relationship with Russia, it's a foreign
policy decision that a duly elected government is entitled to make. It therefore lays squarely
in the political realm, not the legal one -- though national security officials and Democrats
have tried their best to make it fit in the latter.
This is perhaps best symbolized by Comey and Obama's apparent goal of prosecuting Flynn
under the Logan Act, a probably
unconstitutional 221-year-old law enacted by the same repressive Congress that brought you
the Alien and Sedition Acts, and which has never been used to successfully prosecute an
American. As liberal legal scholar Detlev F. Vagts put it in in 1966, throughout its history, the
Logan Act has been used as "a debating weapon against the opposition and as a threat against
those out of power," a charge that
remains just as true today , as attested by its invocation during the Bush and Obama
years.
That the administration ultimately resorted to this antiquated law, which prohibits citizens
from "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government" over disagreements with the
US, is a sign of how desperate it was to charge Flynn with anything in its waning days. That
Flynn was no ordinary citizen but an official for an elected administration-in-waiting whose
direct remit was foreign policy makes the threat even more absurd.
Unfortunately, this isn't the end of it. As
others have
pointed out , long before the Mueller report made clear a Trump-Russia conspiracy didn't
actually exist, a number of Obama officials testified to the closed-door committee that they
saw no actual evidence for this -- only hints that made them suspicious.
Yet that didn't stop those involved from using their public platforms to fan the flames of
conspiracy against the Trump administration. Maybe most outrageous was former DNI Clapper, who
despite testifying he'd seen no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has
repeatedly gone on CNN and
charged that Trump could be a Russian asset. (Amusingly, for all of Obama's complaints that
Flynn was allowed to get away with "perjury," it's Clapper who actually committed that
particular crime, lying
to Congress about the scope of government surveillance, which Obama's DoJ
refused to lift a finger about despite demands from members of Congress).
Also deserving of special mention is Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democrat who more than any other
pushed the "collusion" storyline, riding it to prominence and
political donations . Schiff, long a conduit for
military contractors , who entered Congress by
fundraising record amounts off the
Clinton-Lewinsky scandal , has spent years alleging a grand conspiracy between Trump and
the Kremlin despite being told under oath by Obama officials hostile to Trump that they had
seen no evidence of such a thing. Unsurprisingly, Schiff, the intelligence committee's
chairman, long
resisted the release of the transcripts.
Russiagate is therefore looking more and more like a familiar story: one of national
security officials, driven by an unflinching belief in the righteousness of their cause and a
suspicion of any foreign policy vision outside the narrow and militarist Washington consensus,
leading a crusade against those whose views they viewed ran contrary to their own. As always,
they turned fundamentally political disagreements into an issue of national security, resulting
in the FBI violating norms and laws of its
own, while running roughshod over the rights of American citizens.
It is too bad that, because the misconduct this time targeted the justifiably loathed figure
of Trump, many observers are incapable of seeing this. The FBI's misconduct in the Trump-Russia
investigation was "troubling, no question," writes
Vox . "But they may not be unique to the Russia investigation, but rather endemic to
the agency itself."
This is not a defense; it's a description of the very problem.
Why Should the Liberal
Left Care?
For many on the liberal left, the Flynn case and the entire Russiagate saga elicits anything
ranging from disinterest to outright cheer-leading. After all, why should anyone opposed to
Trump, a lifelong
criminal and dangerous reactionary, be bothered that the might of the United States' vast
security state was, for once, turned against him?
The answer is that, as with all anti-civil liberties
measures , these tactics are first legitimated by being turned on groups and individuals
that are wholly unsympathetic, so they can later be used against less objectionable targets.
Justifying prosecutorial misconduct and state overreach in one case where an outgoing
administration and its allies targeted their political opponents over matters of policy sets a
dangerous precedent for future victims, including a potential left-wing or even liberal
administration.
Imagine, for instance, if Trump (or any other Republican administration) had spent years
alarmingly tamping up tensions with an officially designated foreign adversary -- Iran or
China, for instance. Imagine one of those governments then leaked unflattering but true
information about Republican corruption and malfeasance in order to help their Democratic
opponents win, and Trump retaliated with sanctions and other measures.
Imagine, too, that Democrats had publicly pledged to restore friendly relations with these
powers during the campaign, and, upon winning the election, an official in the soon-to-be
Democratic administration privately urged them not to overreact to Trump's retaliatory actions.
Imagine, then, that the Trump administration unlawfully spied on members of the Democratic
campaign, attempted to railroad that official on flimsy grounds, all while his allies continued
hobbling the succeeding administration by alleging an unproven foreign conspiracy -- all
because they thought reorienting relations with countries viewed as dangerous enemies by the
Right was something inherently suspect and criminal.
Just as Democrats were right to demand Robert Mueller be allowed to carry out his inquiry,
Republicans are absolutely correct to want an investigation
of these abuses, even if they're driven by partisan motives -- partisan concerns, after
all, have always played some role in the accounting of malfeasance in Washington, from
Iran-Contra to the 9/11 Commission. And it's perfectly possible to be outraged at this entire
saga without supporting Trump or treating the GOP as principled defenders of civil liberties --
indeed, the party is right now pushing a radical
expansion of government surveillance powers that should worry us all.
It is particularly symbolic that in the midst of this imbroglio, the FBI just
accidentally revealed the name of another Saudi embassy official complicit in the September
11 attacks, whose identity was long kept hidden by the US government as a "state secret" whose
revelation could cause "significant harm to the national security." Collusion, foreign
adversary, national security: in Washington, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/20/2020 - 18:05 A 2017 Inauguration Day email that former national security adviser
Susan Rice sent to herself documenting a January 5 Oval Office meeting discussing the case
against her successor Michael Flynn was done so at the direction of White House counsel ,
according to
Fox News . The meeting documented in Rice's memo included Obama, former VP Joe Biden and
former FBI Director James Comey, who - according to Rice, "does have some concerns that
incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak."
"Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, and upon the advice of the
White House Counsel's Office, Ambassador Rice created a permanent record of the discussion,"
Rice's attorney Kathryn Ruemmler wrote to senators in 2018. "Ambassador Rice memorialized the
discussion on January 20, because that was the first opportunity she had to do so, given the
particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Advisor during the remaining
days of the administration and transition."
Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified the previously
redacted section of Rice's email and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made it public on Tuesday.
That section says Comey suggested to Obama that the National Security Council [NSC] might
not want to pass "sensitive information related to Russia" to incoming national security
adviser Flynn.
The email pointed to what were apparently widespread concerns about Flynn's Russia
contacts. Multiple sources confirmed to Fox News that what initially put Flynn on the radar
was the number of interactions he had with senior Russian government officials in 2016, as
laid out in various intelligence reports viewed by Obama White House officials. -
Fox News
Damage control?
For those who aren't buying the given explanation for the email, 'Sundance' of The Conservative Treehouse has an
interesting theory that it was written to cover up the fact that Obama knew all about the Flynn
investigation .
2) The position of President Obama and Susan Rice is that the White House was unaware of
any FBI investigation of Flynn (or the Trump campaign); nor did they have any involvement in
directing it to take place.
4) When James Clapper walked directly into the White House with "intelligence cuts", from
the FBI to share with President Obama, it's likely the legal team around Obama -specifically
including Kathryn Reummler- went bananas.
6) Worse... if anyone should later question FBI Director Comey about it, Comey would say
(honestly) he knew Obama was briefed on it because he provided a paper trail.
WH counsel Ruemmler would have immediately identified the White House exposure.
Addendum: The framework and purpose of the Rice 'memo to file' was obvious in the 2018
Rice/Ruemmler response to the Senate. pic.twitter.com/2IQxIyFwuK
incoming
NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak " in a meeting documented
in the January 2017 memo by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the unredacted first page of
which was obtained by CBS on Tuesday.
The FBI director admits he " has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified
information to Kislyak ," and no real basis for his insistence that the probe must go
on.
-- Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May
19, 2020
The only thing backing his hunch that the meetings between the general and the Russian
diplomat " could be an issue "?
" The level of communication is unusual ," Comey tells Obama, according to Rice,
hinting that the National Security Council should " potentially " avoid passing "
sensitive information related to Russia " to Flynn.
The FBI director did not elaborate on what is supposed to be " unusual " about an
incoming foreign policy official speaking with a Russian counterpart, especially in the midst
of what was then a rapidly-unraveling diplomatic relationship between the two countries with
Obama expelling 35 Russian diplomats and imposing sanctions over
alleged-but-never-substantiated " election interference. " Given the circumstances, an
absence of communication might have been more unusual. But the timing is certainly
auspicious.
Rice, Flynn's predecessor who authored the memo, relates that the January 5 meeting followed
" a briefing by [Intelligence Committee] leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016
Presidential election ."
The previous day, the FBI field office assigned with investigating Flynn attempted to close
the case against him, called CROSSFIRE RAZOR, after having found " no derogatory
information " to justify continued inclusion in the overarching CROSSFIRE HURRICANE probe
(the " Russian collusion " investigation). They were blocked from doing so by Agent
Peter Strzok, who added that the orders to keep the investigation going came from the " 7th
floor " - i.e. agency leadership. The Flynn investigation had been underway since August,
beginning the day after Strzok discussed an 'insurance policy' that was supposed to keep
then-candidate Donald Trump out of office with Comey's deputy, Andrew McCabe. While Comey
describes his probe of Flynn as " proceeding 'by the book' " after Obama repeatedly
stresses he wants only a " by the book " investigation - both parties presumably
hoping to avoid exactly the sequence of revelatory events that are currently unfolding -
recently-unsealed documents from the case against Flynn indicate the general was entrapped,
with the FBI's goal being to " prosecute him or get him fired " with an ambush-style
interview.
They got both their wishes - after agents tricked him into sitting for questioning without a
lawyer present, Flynn was accused of lying about his contacts with Kislyak, fired from his post
in the White House, and subsequently pled guilty to lying to a federal agent.
The Department of Justice has dropped its charges against Flynn, citing gross misconduct and
abuse of power at the FBI, which it claims had no basis for launching its investigation.
However, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan has attempted to block the dismissal, appointing a
retired judge as independent prosecutor to both argue against the Justice Department's move and
pursue perjury charges against Flynn - essentially charging him with lying about lying.
On Tuesday, Flynn's attorney filed a writ of mandamus with the US Court of Appeals for the
DC Circuit, urging them to force Sullivan to step aside and allow the dismissal of the
charges.
Yet another bombshell development emerged Thursday in the case of former National Security
Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn: the release of additional exculpatory evidence FBI officials had
withheld from the courts and the defense for three years.
Crucially, this includes evidence that the Bureau's official "302 report" filed by the lead
agent who interviewed Flynn was edited multiple times, including by an official who never
participated in the interview.
Thursday's revelations come on top of yesterday's disclosures indicating an apparent attempt
by FBI officials to trap Flynn into committing a criminal offense during an interview.
The new revelation could prove even more significant: In addition to the apparently
calculated effort to get Flynn to commit perjury or obstruction, top FBI figures, including FBI
Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, repeatedly altered the "302
report" that was filed after the Flynn interview.
That interview was conducted under highly unusual circumstances. Ordinarily, an FBI
interview of a top West Wing official would be requested through the White House Counsel's
office, and would be conducted in the presence of legal counsel representing the official being
interviewed.
That did not occur in the case of the FBI's interview with Flynn, and Comey later stated
that under "a more organized administration" he "probably wouldn't have gotten away with
it."
Initially, when the lead FBI agent handling the case was asked whether Flynn lied during the
interview, he stated that he did not believe so.
But over the coming days Strzok and Page would edit and revise the agent's 302 report
repeatedly, according to a document providing text messages between FBI officials that the
defense counsel finally received this week.
Prosecutors and investigators are required to turn over information that might tend to
indicate a suspect's innocence to the defense counsel prior to trial and sentencing. Most legal
analysts would consider the information withheld from Flynn's legal team potentially
exculpatory.
An inside source familiar with efforts to defend Gen. Flynn tells Newsmax an unadulterated,
original 302 document exists that was created by the lead agent from his notes of the interview
with Flynn.
Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor who testified before the
House during President Trump's impeachment, wrote Thursday the decision to keep the case open
occurred when "Special counsel Robert Mueller decided to bring the dubious charge."
In a column posted on TheHill.com on Thursday, Turley said the case against Flynn should be
dismissed. "Justice demands a dismissal of his prosecution," he wrote.
At the time Flynn was being prosecuted, Mueller was seeking evidence the Trump campaign
colluded with Russia in the 2016 campaign.
Critics say he was prosecuting Flynn to get him to turn state's witness against Trump, but
the general never implicated him.
Mueller eventually determined there was no evidence of a Russian-collusion conspiracy. But
by then Flynn, under intense financial pressure from the prosecution and buckling under the
threat that his son could be drawn into a legal quagmire, had pled guilty to one count of lying
to the FBI.
He has since requested to withdraw that plea, and he is awaiting sentencing.
President Trump weighed in on the controversial case Thursday morning tweeting, "What
happened to General Michael Flynn, a war hero, should never be allowed to happen to a citizen
of the United States again!"
Later the president told reporters he believes Flynn is "in the process of being
exonerated."
Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik reacted strongly on Thursday to the
news FBI officials to altered a 302 report and reopened the case when the initial analysis
indicated no crime had been committed.
Kerik told Newsmax Thursday that if evidence or records had been unduly altered under his
watch as police commissioner, he would have referred the matter to the district attorney for
possible prosecution.
"They intentionally went back and doctored the original 302," he said. "That's because they
were not looking for the truth.
"They were looking for a mechanism to trap Gen. Flynn, to prosecute him, to get him fired in
order to go after the president. That was their motive, that was their agenda. It's absolutely
clear at this point they were not looking for the truth."
Kerik added, "This was done at the highest levels of the FBI. At the most senior level of
the FBI, they falsified records, they suppressed evidence.
"This is irresponsible, it's outrageous They used and abused their authority to deprive Gen.
Flynn of his constitutional right to freedom," he said.
According to the source, as supported by text messages also obtained by Newsmax, Stzrok, who
also participated in the Flynn interview, rewrote the 302 extensively -- although a text
message from him stated he tried not to "completely re-write it so as to save [redacted]
voice," presumably a reference to the lead agent who originally wrote it.
Stzrok then shared the document with a "pissed off" Page, who had not participated in the
interview, and who revised it significantly again, according to the Newsmax source.
The objective of the interview was to probe whether Flynn had violated the Logan Act, an
18th-century statute that has never been used in any criminal conviction. The Act makes it a
crime for a U.S. citizens to interfere with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Many legal
scholars find the law to be unconstitutional.
The documents received by Newsmax indicate the case had virtually been closed –
suggesting the lead agent was satisfied no crime had been committed -- prior to it being
reopened by the direct intervention of Strzok and Page.
The documents, for example, show the probe of Flynn was about to be put to bed when the lead
agent received a text from Strzok stating, "Hey, if you haven't closed [the case], don't do so
yet."
Apparently, Page was pleasantly surprised to find the matter had not yet been closed.
On Feb. 10, 2017, Page texted Strzok, "This document pisses me off. You didn't even attempt
to make this cogent and readable? This is lazy work on your part."
Strzok replied, "Lisa you didn't see it before my edits that went into what I sent you. I
was 1) trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save [the lead agent's] voice and 2)
get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon."
Wednesday's revelation included notes of a meeting conducted a short time after the 2016
election between FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The notes stated,
"What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?"
The notes were written by then-FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap.
For years former President Obama remained more or less off the grid. It could be argued that
it is not uncommon for an ex-president to stay out of the limelight. Several Presidents have
done this even claiming it was for the good of the country and in an effort not to interfere
with the country moving forward. Obama has recently reemerged and injected himself into the
public spotlight, at times taking aim at President Trump and the way his administration is
handling various situations. It is not surprising that President Trump is not pleased.
While our memory has a way of removing rough edges from events we should not try to
whitewash the past and rewrite history to present a different picture of what really happened.
Because of the stark contrast in the demeanor and style of Trump and Obama, the media has
"photo shopped" reality. Obama has been painted as, a thoughtful, intelligent, capable man full
of hope and able to bring us together. He did, after all, bring America's economy back from the
brink of disaster following the Great Recession. Trump, on the other hand, is often portrayed
as a divisive, dishonest, braggart, and a buffoon. The fact is during Obama's time as President
the country suffered scandal upon scandal upon scandal, it might be fair to say we had
"scandals galore."
Mosul, Reduced To Rubble On Obama's Watch
And then, there was Mosul. The destruction of Mosul and the many lives lost there stand as a
monument of Obama's failings. We should
not forget that during Obama's watch the once-proud Iraqi city of Mosul was reduced to
rubble. This was done as a coalition of anti-ISIS forces try to retake the city. The very
roots of ISIS were fed by America and its botched policies. The saying, "never throw stones if
you live in a glass house" would lead people to think Obama should have remained in the
shadows.
Looking back, there were so many, big and small scandals such as the fast and furious, the
operation that sent guns into the hands of drug gangs in Mexico, they became difficult to
track. In Las Vegas, the GSA went on a spending spree. A large number of sexual assaults
occurring in the military. Solyndra which should be placed in the dictionary and defined as
"what happens when politicians and bureaucrats play businessman with taxpayer money" failed.
The CIA had a "prostitutes fiasco" in South America. Fisker Automotive failed, this deal reeked
of government cronyism and waste. Add to this what looked like a "Benghazi coverup" (including
the way it was handled in the second presidential debate) add the DOJ doing an over the top and
wiretapping the Associated Press.
Trump Will Leave None Of This Unaddressed
We should not forget some of the following if truth be told. The resurfacing of Mr. Obama
and images of him opining with his chin tilted slightly upward motivated me to look back at
some posts written during his time as President. Remember, because of his persona, a degree of
optimism was in the air as he took office, across the world many people saw him as the answer
to taking the whole world forward. Below are a few of those with links to the original as well
as a few other comments on what history has revealed as major policy blunders flowing from his
time in office.
Other major faux-pas, blunders or missteps of the Obama administration include;
Generated the destabilizing "Arab Spring"
Failed in helping Iraq stabilize
Horribly mishandling the situation in Syria and in doing so fund the creation of
ISIS
Underestimating ISIS
Aiding in turning Libya into a failed state
Obama care failed to reduce health care cost but transferred them to other payers
Failed to lessen racial strife, note Ferguson, Missouri, and other events
Destabilizing Ukraine in a pissing war with Putin
IRS, when it targeted conservative groups
Fast and Furious - where the US illegally sold guns in Mexico
To say we were awash in scandals during the Obama era is an understatement, fortunately for
Obama, most Americans have the attention span of a gnat .
To be clear, not everyone will agree with what I have listed as "faux-pas, blunders or
missteps" but some will. Time tends to reveal whether the decisions we make are great, good,
so-so, or were horribly wrong. If you feel this post was overly biased, unto you I say, sorry,
sorry, sorry.
In an effort to be transparent I confess I'm not a fan of either of these men and to be fair
this post is not a critique of Trump's time in office. While some people may try or continue to
paint Obama as Mr. Clean, a closer look at history rapidly dispels that image.
Phone Calls Between Biden And Ukraine's Poroshenko Leaked; Details $1 Billion "Quid Pro
Quo" To Fire Burisma Prosecutor by Tyler Durden Wed, 05/20/2020 - 05:12 Leaked
phone calls between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko explicitly detail
the quid-pro-quo arrangement to fire former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin - who
Poroshenko admits did nothing wrong - in exchange for $1 billion in US loan guarantees (which
Biden openly bragged about in January, 2018
).
The calls were leaked by Ukrainian MP
Andrii Derkach , who says the recordings of "voices similar to Poroshenko and Biden" were
given to him by investigative journalists who claim Poroshenko made them.
Shokin was notably investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that hired Biden's
son, Hunter, to sit on its board. Shokin had opened a case against Burisma's founder, Mykola
Zlochevsky, who granted Burisma permits to drill for oil and gas in Ukraine while he was
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. In January, 2019,
Shokin stated in a deposition that there were five criminal cases against Zlochevesky,
including money laundering, corruption, illegal funds transfers, and profiteering through shell
corporations while he was a sitting minister.
The leaked calls begin on December 3, 2015 , when former Secretary of State John Kerry
starts laying out the case to fire Shokin - who he says "blocked the cleanup of the Prosecutor
Generals' Office," and sated that Biden "is very concerned about it," to which Poroshenko
replies that the newly reorganized prosecutor general's office (NABU) won't be able to pursue
corruption charges, and that it may be difficult to fire Shokin without cause.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/EbmDLhJ43cU
Later in the leaked audio on February 18, 2016 - less than three months after the Kerry
conversation - Poroshenko delivers some "positive news."
"Yesterday I met with General Prosecutor Shokin," says Poroshenko. And despite of the fact
that we didn't have any corruption charges, we don't have any information about him doing
something wrong, I specially asked him - no, it was day before yesterday - I specially asked
him to resign. In, uh, as his, uh, position as a state person. And despite of the fact that he
has a support in the power. And as a finish of my meeting with him, he promised to give me the
statement on resignation. And one hour ago he bring me the written statement of his resignation
. And this is my second step for keeping my promises. "
Four weeks later on March 22, 2016, Biden says "Tell me that there is a new government and a
new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion
dollars. "
Poroshenko tells Biden that one of the leading candidates is the man who replaced Shokin,
Yuriy Lutsenko who later said
in a deposition that Hunter Biden and his business partners were receiving millions of
dollars in compensation from Burisma.
Then, on May 13, 2016, Biden congratulates Poroshenko on "getting the new Prosecutor
General," saying that it will be "critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage Shokin
did."
" And I'm a man of my word ," Biden adds. "And now that the new Prosecutor General is in
place, we're ready to move forward to signing that one billion dollar loan guarantee ."
Poroshenko thanks Biden for the support, and says that it was a "very tough challenge and a
very difficult job."
Shokin, meanwhile, filed a criminal complaint against Biden in Kiev this February, in which
he writes:
During the period 2014-2016, the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine was conducting a
preliminary investigation into a series of serious crimes committed by the former Minister of
Ecology of Ukraine Mykola Zlotchevsky and by the managers of the company "Burisma Holding
Limited "(Cyprus), the board of directors of which included, among others, Hunter Biden, son of
Joseph Biden, then vice-president of the United States of America.
The investigation into the above-mentioned crimes was carried out in strict accordance with
Criminal Law and was under my personal control as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Owing to my firm position on the above-mentioned cases regarding their prompt and objective
investigation, which should have resulted in the arrest and the indictment of the guilty
parties, Joseph Biden developed a firmly hostile attitude towards me which led him to express
in private conversations with senior Ukrainian officials, as well as in his public speeches, a
categorical request for my immediate dismissal from the post of Attorney General of Ukraine in
exchange for the sum of US $ 1 billion in as a financial guarantee from the United States for
the benefit of Ukraine.
* * *
And while we cannot verify the authenticity of the recordings with absolute certainty, we
now have the audio revealing how the deed was orchestrated.
"... I guess Obama didn't think he could rely on Sally Yates to lie on his behalf but knew he could count on "Old Faithful" Susan Rice to do the job. If the MSM were fair they'd be mocking (at the very least) her overuse of the figure of speech "by the book". I hope someone throws that book at her and the rest of the cabal. ..."
"... BTW, I seem to recall reading a long time ago that Rice made a mess wherever she served. I could be mistaken though. ..."
"... Well if we can't get a "perfumed prince" in the docket, this deplorable will settle for a "perfumed princess. ..."
...This is nothing more than a lame, stupid attempt on the part of Susan Rice to create some plausible deniability for Barack
Obama. She placed herself in a meeting that, according to Sally Yates, was limited to Obama, Comey and Yates. Rice puts the blame
on Comey for talking about the Russians. The Sally Yates account told to FBI under the penalty of lying to the FBI, was quite clear
that Obama initiated the discussion of Russia, Flynn and the sanctions.
Someone is lying. Susan Rice is a demonstrated liar and was not under oath when she wrote up her fabricated version of the 5 January
meeting. Sally Yates, however, would face legal peril if she lied to the FBI agents who interviewed her. I believer Sally Yates provided
the truthful account of what actually happened after Barack Obama asked everyone but Yates and Comey to leave the room.
Did Barry ever wing anything on his own without his sidekicks Rce or Jarrett immediately by his side, ready to run cover for
him later when necessary?
Rice's presence was probably so ubiquitous, it was not worthy of mention in later present party recollections. I would assume
Barry could not speak in public without a teleprompter and not speak in private without his "wingman".
Why do we assume Valerie Jarrett is still living in the same house as the former POTUS? So when the phone rings and someone
wants to know something about what Barry did while he was in office, ValJar the NightStalker can be ready with the answer.
My guess is Rice was attached at the hip whenever there was a chance Barry would open his mouth. Make the failure to mention
Rice more an oversight rather than something ominous.
More troubling was Yates getting cut off by Lindsey Graham every time she tried to explain that Flynn had not been "unmasked"
during her Senate testimony, per the video clip. What that just dismissive on Graham's part or inadvertent. Wild speculation,
had McCain "leaked" the Flynn phone call to Wapo?
I guess Obama didn't think he could rely on Sally Yates to lie on his behalf but knew he could count on "Old Faithful" Susan
Rice to do the job. If the MSM were fair they'd be mocking (at the very least) her overuse of the figure of speech "by the book".
I hope someone throws that book at her and the rest of the cabal.
BTW, I seem to recall reading a long time ago that Rice made a mess wherever she served. I could be mistaken though.
Has anyone else noticed that James Comey's been very quiet lately?
"... The US Treasury Department was regularly spying on Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn , Paul Manafort Jr., senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign, members of the Trump family, and congressional lawmakers , according to The Tennessee Star 's Neil W. McCabe. ..."
"... The scheme allowed the perpetrators to circumvent classified avenues to surveil Americans. Once enough information had been gathered against a target, they would use a different type of search. ..."
"... In March 2017, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General Richard K. Delmar, who never followed up on the matter despite acknowledging receipt of the complaint. Prior to that, she filed an August 2016 notification which was rejected as it didn't meet the requirements of a formal complaint. ..."
"... This surveillance program was run out of Treasury's Office of Intelligence Analysis , which was then under the leadership of S. Leslie Ireland ..."
"... The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn, because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines, approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance operation. - The Tennessee Star ..."
The US Treasury Department was regularly spying on Lt. Gen.
Michael T. Flynn , Paul Manafort Jr., senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign, members of
the Trump family, and congressional lawmakers , according to
The Tennessee Star 's Neil W. McCabe.
"I started seeing things that were not correct, so I did my own little investigation,
because I wanted to make sure what I was seeing was correct," a former senior Treasury
Department official and veteran of the intelligence community told McCabe. "You never want to
draw attention to something if there is not anything there," she added.
The whistleblower said she only saw metadata, that is names and dates when the general's
financial records were accessed. "I never saw what they saw."
By March 2016, the whistleblower said she and a colleague, who was detailed to Treasury
from the intelligence community, became convinced that the surveillance of Flynn was not tied
to legitimate criminal or national security concerns, but was straight-up political
surveillance among other illegal activity occurring at Treasury.
"When I showed it to her, what she said, 'Oh, sh%t!' and I knew right then and there that
I was right – this was some shady stuff," the whistleblower said.
"It wasn't just him," the whistleblower said. "They were targeting other U.S. citizens, as
well." -
The Tennessee Star
"Another thing they would do is take targeted names from a certain database – I cannot
name, but you can guess – and they were going over to an unclassified database and they
were running those names in the unclassified database," she added.
The scheme allowed the perpetrators to circumvent classified avenues to surveil Americans.
Once enough information had been gathered against a target, they would use a different type of
search.
In March 2017, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General
Richard K. Delmar, who never followed up on the matter despite acknowledging receipt of the
complaint. Prior to that, she filed an August 2016 notification which was rejected as it didn't
meet the requirements of a formal complaint.
In May 2017, she filed another complaint with the Office of Special Counsel.
The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn,
because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department
never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines,
approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance
operation. -
The Tennessee Star
"Accessing this information without approved and signed attorney general guidelines would
violate U.S. persons constitutional rights and civil liberties," said the whistleblower, adding
"IC agencies have to adhere to Executive Order 12333, or as it is known in the community: E.O.
12-Triple-Three. Just because OIA does not have signed guidelines does not give them the power
or right to operate as they want, if you want information on a U.S. person then work with the
FBI on a Title III, if it is a U.S. person involved with a foreign entity then follow the
correct process for a FISA, but without signed AG guidelines you cannot even get started ."
This is about intelligence agencies becaming a powerful by shadow political force, much like
STASI. This not about corruption per se, but about perusing of political goals by dirty means. So
it is closer to sedition then to corruption.
Notable quotes:
"... there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign governments with whom they will soon have to work." ..."
"... there was also massive corruption on the part of the investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and personal vendettas ..."
"... To begin with, cable and other news outlets that employed former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents. ..."
"... But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political advantage. ..."
"... Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally) should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S. government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the detainees at Guantanamo to find their treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people who are being censured in order to defend their right of free expression . ..."
"... As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny. That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning. ..."
Gen. Michael Flynn, President Obama's former director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency and President Donald Trump's former national security adviser,
pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017, to a single count of lying to the FBI about two
conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Flynn served as a Trump
transition team official (Flynn was never
charged for any matters relating to his relationship with the Turkish government). As part
of the plea deal, special counsel Robert Mueller
recommended no jail time for Flynn , and the plea agreement also seemingly put an end to
threats from the Mueller team to prosecute Flynn's son.
Last Thursday, the Justice Department
filed a motion seeking to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn based, in part, on newly
discovered documents revealing that the conduct of the FBI, under the leadership of
Director James Comey and his now-disgraced Deputy Andrew McCabe (who himself was forced to
leave the Bureau after
being caught lying to agents ), was improper and motivated by corrupt objectives. That
motion prompted histrionic howls of outrage from
the same political officials and their media allies who have spent the last three years pushing
maximalist Russiagate conspiracy theories.
But the prosecution of Flynn -- for allegedly lying to the FBI when he denied in a January
24 interrogation that he had discussed with Kislyak on December 29 the new
sanctions and expulsions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration -- was always odd
for a number of reasons. To begin with, the FBI agents who questioned Flynn said afterward that
they did not believe he was lying (as
CNN reported in February 2017: "the FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and
provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they
don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say"). For that reason, CNN
said, "the FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against" him.
More importantly, there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about
his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or
unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three
weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to
tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post
put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign
governments with whom they will soon have to work." What newly released documents over the
last month reveal is what has been generally evident for the last three years: The powers of
the security state agencies -- particularly the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the DOJ -- were
systematically abused as part of the 2016 election and then afterward for political rather than
legal ends.
While there was obviously deceit and corruption on the part of some Trump
officials in lying to Russiagate investigators and otherwise engaging in depressingly
common D.C. lobbyist corruption , there was also massive corruption on the part of the
investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and
prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and
personal vendettas . The former category (corruption by Trump officials) has received a
tidal wave of endless media attention, while the latter (corruption and abuse of power by those
investigating them) has received almost none.
For numerous reasons, it is vital to fully examine with as much clarity as possible the
abuse of power that drove the prosecution of Flynn. To begin with, cable and other news
outlets that employed
former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every
Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even
questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents.
More disturbingly, liberals and Democrats -- as part of their movement toward venerating
these security state agencies -- have completely jettisoned long-standing, core principles
about the criminal justice system, including questioning whether
lying to the FBI should be a crime at all and recognizing that innocent people
are often forced to plead guilty -- in order to justify both the Flynn prosecution
and the broader Mueller probe.
But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the
most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were
blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political
advantage. In other words, we know now that these agencies did exactly what Democratic
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warned they would do to Trump when he appeared on Rachel
Maddow's MSNBC program shortly before Trump's inauguration:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Because U.S. politics is now discussed far more as tests of tribal loyalty ("Whose
side are you on?") than actual ideological or even political beliefs ("Which policies do you
favor or oppose?"), it is very difficult to persuade people to separate their personal or
political views of Flynn ("Do you like him or not?") from the question of whether the U.S.
government abused its power in gravely dangerous ways to prosecute him.
Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are
ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's
views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally)
should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S.
government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the
detainees at Guantanamo to find their
treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people
who are being censured in
order to defend their right of
free expression .
The ability to distinguish between ideological questions from evidentiary
questions is vital for rational discourse to be possible, yet has been all but eliminated at
the altar of tribal fealty. That is why evidentiary questions completely devoid of ideological
belief -- such as whether one found the Russiagate conspiracy theories supported by convincing
evidence -- have been treated not as evidentiary matters but as tribal ones: to be affiliated
with the left (an ideological characterization), one must affirm belief in those conspiracy
theories even if one does not find the evidence in support of them actually compelling. The
conflation of ideological and evidentiary questions, and the substitution of substantive
political debates with tests of tribal loyalty, are indescribably corrosive to our public
discourse.
As a result, whether one is now deemed on the right or left has almost nothing to do with
actual political beliefs about policy questions and everything to do with one's willingness to
serve the interests of one team or another. With the warped formula in place, U.S. politics has
been depoliticized , stripped of any meaningful ideological debates in lieu of mindless
team loyalty oaths on non-ideological questions.
Our newest SYSTEM UPDATE episode, debuting today, is devoted to enabling as clear and
objective an examination as possible of the abuses that drove the Flynn prosecution --
including these critical, newly declassified documents -- as well the broader Russiagate
investigations of which it was a part. These abuses have received far too little attention from
the vast majority of the U.S. media that simply excludes any questioning or dissent of their
prevailing narratives about all of these matters.
Notably, we invited several of the cable stars and security state agents who have been
pushing these conspiracy theories for years to appear on the program for a civil discussion,
but none were willing to do so -- because they are so accustomed to being able to spout these
theories on MSNBC, CNN, and in newspapers without ever being meaningfully challenged.
Regardless of one's views on these scandals, it is unhealthy in the extreme for any media to
insulate themselves from a diversity of views.
As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke
Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a
knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny.
That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their
audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning.
Today's SYSTEM UPDATE episode, which we believe provides the most comprehensive examination
to date of these new documents relating to the Flynn prosecution and how this case relates to
the broader Russiagate investigative abuses, can be viewed above or on The Intercept's YouTube channel .
This is about control of MSM by intelligence agencies, not so much about corruption of
individual journalists. Journalist became like in the USSR "Soldiers of the Party" -- well paid
propagandist of particular, supplied to them talking points.
What is particularly valuable about Smith's article is its perfect description of a media
sickness borne of the Trump era that is rapidly corroding journalistic integrity and
justifiably destroying trust in news outlets. Smith aptly dubs this pathology "resistance
journalism," by which he means that journalists are now not only free, but encouraged and
incentivized , to say or publish anything they want, no matter how reckless and fact-free,
provided their target is someone sufficiently disliked in mainstream liberal media venues
and/or on social media:
[Farrow's] work, though, reveals the weakness of a kind of resistance journalism that has
thrived in the age of Donald Trump: That if reporters swim ably along with the tides of
social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest
voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than
essential journalistic imperatives.
That can be a dangerous approach, particularly in a moment when the idea of truth and a
shared set of facts is under assault.
In assailing Farrow for peddling unproven conspiracy theories, Smith argues that such
journalistic practices are particularly dangerous in an era where conspiracy theories are
increasingly commonplace. Yet unlike most journalists with a mainstream platform, Smith
emphasizes that conspiracy theories are commonly used not only by Trump and his movement
(conspiracy theories which are quickly debunked by most of the mainstream media), but are also
commonly deployed by Trump's enemies, whose reliance on conspiracy theories is virtually never
denounced by journalists because mainstream news outlets themselves play a key role in peddling
them:
We are living in an era of conspiracies and dangerous untruths -- many pushed by President
Trump, but others hyped by his enemies -- that have lured ordinary Americans into
passionately believing wild and unfounded theories and fiercely rejecting evidence to the
contrary. The best reporting tries to capture the most attainable version of the truth, with
clarity and humility about what we don't know. Instead, Mr. Farrow told us what we wanted to
believe about the way power works, and now, it seems, he and his publicity team are not even
pretending to know if it's true.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected , and one could argue even in the months leading up to
his election, journalistic standards have been consciously jettisoned when it comes to
reporting on public figures who, in Smith's words, are "most disliked by the loudest voices,"
particularly when such reporting "swim[s] ably along with the tides of social media." Put
another way: As long the targets of one's conspiracy theories and attacks are regarded as
villains by the guardians of mainstream liberal social media circles, journalists reap endless
career rewards for publishing unvetted and unproven -- even false -- attacks on such people,
while never suffering any negative consequences when their stories are exposed as shabby
frauds.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/OOhRRr6c1wA?autoplay=0&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com&widgetid=1
infiltrated and taken over the U.S. government through sexual and financial blackmail
leverage over Trump and used it to dictate U.S. policy; Trump officials conspired with the
Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election; Russia was attacking the U.S. by
hacking its electricity grid , recruiting
journalists to serve as clandestine Kremlin messengers , and plotting to cut off heat to
Americans in winter. Mainstream media debacles -- all in service of promoting the same set of
conspiracy theories against Trump -- are literally too numerous to count, requiring one to
select the worst offenses as illustrative .
In March of last year, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi -- writing under the
headline "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD" -- compared the prevailing
media climate since 2016 to that which prevailed in 2002 and 2003 regarding the invasion of
Iraq and the so-called war on terror: little to no dissent permitted, skeptics of
media-endorsed orthodoxies shunned and excluded, and worst of all, the very journalists who
were most wrong in peddling false conspiracy theories were exactly those who ended up most
rewarded on the ground that even though they spread falsehoods, they did so for the
right cause.
Under that warped rubric -- in which spreading falsehoods is commendable as long as
it was done to harm the evildoers -- the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the most
damaging endorsers of
false
conspiracy theories about Iraq , rose to become editor-in-chief of The Atlantic,
while two of the most deceitful Bush-era neocons, Bush/Cheney speechwriter David Frum and
supreme propagandist Bill Kristol, have reprised their role as leading propagandists and
conspiracy theorists -- only this time aimed against the GOP president instead of on his behalf
-- and thus have become beloved liberal media icons. The communications director for both the
Bush/Cheney campaign and its White House, Nicole Wallace, is one of the most popular liberal
cable hosts from her MSNBC perch.
Join
Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in
Exactly the same journalism-destroying dynamic is driving the post-Russiagate media landscape.
There is literally no accountability for the journalists and news outlets that spread
falsehoods in their pages, on their airwaves, and through their viral social media postings.
The Washington Post's media columnist Erik Wemple has been one of the very few journalists
devoted to holding these myth-peddlers accountable -- recounting how one of the most reckless
Russigate conspiracy maximialists, Natasha Bertrand,
became an overnight social media and journalism star by peddling discredited conspiratorial
trash (she was notably hired by Jeffrey Goldberg to cover Russigate for The Atlantic); MSNBC's
Rachel Maddow
spent three years hyping conspiratorial junk with no need even to retract any of it; and
Mother Jones' David Corn played a
crucial, decisively un-journalistic role in mainstreaming the lies of the Steele dossier
all with zero effect on his journalistic status, other than to enrich him through a predictably
bestselling book that peddled those unhinged conspiracies further.
Wemple's post-Russiagate
series has established him as a commendable, often-lone voice trying -- with futility -- to
bring some accountability to U.S. journalism for the systemic media failures of the past three
years. The reason that's futile is exactly what Smith described in his column on Farrow: In
"resistance journalism," facts and truth are completely dispensable -- indeed, dispensing with
them is rewarded -- provided "reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media
and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices."
That describes perfectly the journalists who were defined, and enriched, by years of
Russiagate deceit masquerading as reporting. By far the easiest path to career success over the
last three years -- booming ratings, lucrative book sales, exploding social media followings,
career rehabilitation even for the most discredited D.C. operatives -- was to feed
establishment liberals an endless diet of fearmongering and inflammatory conspiracies about
Drumpf and his White House. Whether it was true or supported by basic journalistic standards
was completely irrelevant. Responsible reporting was simply was not a metric used to assess its
worth.
It was one thing for activists, charlatans, and con artists to exploit fears of Trump for
material gain: that, by definition, is what such people do. But it was another thing entirely
for journalists to succumb to all the low-hanging career rewards available to them by
throwing all journalistic standards into the trash bin in exchange for a star turn as a
#Resistance icon. That , as Smith aptly describes, is what "Resistance Journalism" is,
and it's hard to identify anything more toxic to our public discourse.
Perhaps the single most shameful and journalism-destroying episode in all of this -- an
obviously difficult title to bestow -- was when a national security blogger, Marcy Wheeler,
violated long-standing norms and ethical standards of journalism by announcing in 2018 that she
had voluntarily turned in her own source to the FBI,
claiming she did so because her still-unnamed source "had played a significant role in the
Russian election attack on the US" and because her life was endangered by her brave decision to
stop being a blogger and become an armchair cop by pleading with the FBI and the Mueller team
to let her work with them. In her blog post announcing what she did, she claimed she was going
public with her treachery because her life was in danger, and this way everyone would know the
real reason if "someone releases stolen information about me or knocks me off tomorrow."
To say that Wheeler's actions are a grotesque violation of journalistic ethics is to
radically understate the case. Journalists are expected to protect their sources' identities
from the FBI even if they receive a subpoena and a court order compelling its disclosure; we're
expected to go to prison before we comply with FBI attempts to uncover our source's
identity. But here, the FBI did not try to compel Wheeler to tell them anything; they displayed
no interest in her as she desperately tried to chase them down.
By all appearances, Wheeler had to beg the FBI to pay attention to her because they treated
her like the sort of unstable, unhinged, unwell, delusional obsessive who, believing they have
uncovered some intricate conspiracy, relentlessly harass and bombard journalists with their
bizarre theories until they finally prattle to themselves for all of eternity in the spam
filter of our email inboxes. The claim that she was in possession of some sort of explosive and
damning information that would blow the Mueller investigation wide open was laughable. In her
post, she claimed she "always planned to disclose this when this person's role was publicly
revealed," but to date -- almost two years later -- she has never revealed "this person's"
identity because, from all appearances, the Mueller report never relied on Wheeler's intrepid
reporting or her supposedly red-hot secrets.
Like so many other Russiagate obsessives who turned into social media and MSNBC/CNN
#Resistance stars, Wheeler was living a wild, self-serving fantasy, a Cold War Tom Clancy
suspense film that she invented in her head and then cast herself as the heroine: a crusading
investigative dot-connecter uncovering dangerous, hidden conspiracies perpetrated by dangerous,
hidden Cold War-style villains (Putin) to the point where her own life was endangered by her
bravery. It was a sad joke, a depressing spectacle of psycho-drama, but one that could have had
grave consequences for the person she voluntarily ratted out to the FBI. Whatever else is true,
this episode inflicted grave damage on American journalism by having mainstream,
Russia-obsessed journalists not denounce her for her egregious violation of journalistic ethics
but celebrate her for turning journalism on its head.
Why? Because, as Smith said in his Farrow article, she was "swim[ing] ably along with the
tides of social media and produc[ing] damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by
the loudest voices" and thus "the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness [were] more like
impediments than essential journalistic imperatives." Margaret Sullivan, the former New York
Times public editor and now the Washington Post's otherwise reliably commendable media
reporter,
celebrated Wheeler's bizarre behavior under the headline: "A journalist's conscience leads
her to reveal her source to the FBI."
Despite acknowledging that "in their reporting, journalists talk to criminals all the time
and don't turn them in" and that "it's pretty much an inviolable rule of journalism: Protect
your sources," Sullivan heralded Wheeler's ethically repugnant and journalism-eroding
violation of those principles. "It's not hard to see that her decision was a careful and
principled one," Sullivan proclaimed.
She even endorsed Wheeler's cringe-inducing, self-glorifying claims about her life being
endangered by invoking long-standard Cold War clichés about the treachery of the
Russkies ("Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for disposing of people
they find threatening."). The English language is insufficient to convey the madness required
to believe that the Kremlin wanted to kill Marcy Wheeler because her blogging was getting Too
Close to The Truth, but in the fevered swamps of resistance journalism, literally no claim was
too unhinged to be embraced provided that it fed the social media #Resistance masses.
Sullivan's article quoted no critics of Wheeler's incredibly controversial behavior
-- no need to: She was on the right side of social media reaction. And Sullivan never bothered
to return to wonder why her prediction -- "Wheeler hasn't named the source publicly, though his
name may soon be known to all who are following the Mueller investigation" -- never
materialized. Both CNN
and, incredibly, the
Columbia Journalism Review published similarly sympathetic accounts of Wheeler's desperate
attempts to turn over her source to the FBI and then cosplay as though she were some sort of
insider in the Mueller investigation. The most menacing attribute of what Smith calls
"Resistance Journalism" is that it permits and tolerates no dissent and questioning: perhaps
the single most destructive path journalism can take. It has been well-documented that MSNBC
and CNN spent three years peddling all sorts of ultimately discredited Russiagate conspiracy
theories by excluding from their airwaves anyone who dissented from or even questioned those
conspiracies. Instead, they relied upon an
increasingly homogenized army of former security state agents from the CIA, FBI, and NSA to
propound, in unison, all sorts of claims about Trump and Russia that turned out to be false,
and peppered their panels of "analysts" with journalists whose career skyrocketed exclusively
by pushing maximalist Russiagate claims, often by relying on the same intelligence officials
these cable outlets sat them next to.
That NBC & MSNBC hired as a "news analyst" John Brennan - who ran the CIA when the
Trump/Russia investigation began & was a key player in the news he was shaping as a paid
colleague of their reporters - is a huge ethical breach. And it produced this: pic.twitter.com/nPlaq5YVxf
This trend -- whereby diversity of opinion and dissent from orthodoxies are
excluded from media discourse -- is worsening rapidly due to two major factors. The first is
that cable news programs are constructed to feed their audiences only self-affirming narratives
that vindicate partisan loyalties. One liberal cable host told me that they receive ratings not
for each show but for each segment , and they can see the ratings drop off -- the
remotes clicking away -- if they put on the air anyone who criticizes the party to which that
outlet is devoted (Democrats in the case of MSNBC and CNN, the GOP in the case of Fox).
But there's another more recent and probably more dissent-quashing development: the
disappearance of media jobs. Mass layoffs were already common in online journalism and local
newspapers
prior to the coronavirus pandemic , and have now turned into
an industrywide massacre . With young journalists watching jobs disappearing en masse, the
last thing they are going to want to do is question or challenge prevailing orthodoxies within
their news outlet or, using Smith's "Resistance Journalism" formulation, to "swim against the
tides of social media" or question the evidence amassed against those "most disliked by the
loudest voices."
Affirming those orthodoxies can be career-promoting, while questioning them can be
job-destroying. Consider the powerful incentives journalists face in an industry where jobs are
disappearing so rapidly one can barely keep count. During Russiagate, I often heard from young
journalists at large media outlets who expressed varying degrees of support for and agreement
with the skepticism which I and a handful of other journalists were expressing, but they felt
constrained to do so themselves, for good reason. They watched the reprisals and shunning doled
out even to journalists with a long record of journalistic accomplishments and job security for
the crime of Russiagate skepticism, such as Taibbi (similar to the way MSNBC fired Phil
Donahue in 2002 for opposing the invasion of Iraq), and they know journalists with less
stature and security than Taibbi could not risk incurring that collective wrath.
All professions and institutions suffer when a herd, groupthink mentality and the banning of
dissent prevail. But few activities are corroded from such a pathology more than journalism is,
which has as its core function skepticism and questioning of pieties. Journalism quickly
transforms into a sickly, limp version of itself when it itself wages war on the virtues of
dissent and airing a wide range of perspectives.
I do not know how valid are Smith's critiques of Farrow's journalism. But what I know for
certain is that Smith's broader diagnosis of "Resistance Journalism" is dead-on, and the harms
it is causing are deep and enduring. When journalists know they will thrive by affirming
pleasing falsehoods, and suffer when they insist on unpopular truths, journalism not only loses
its societal value but becomes just another instrument for societal manipulation, deceit, and
coercion.
Those are far from failures, those were successful disinformation/propaganda operations conducted with a certain goal --
remove Trump -- which demonstrate the level of intelligence agencies control of the MSM. In other words those are
parts of a bigger intelligence operation -- the color revolution against Trump led most probably by Obama and Brennan.
Now we know that Obama played an important role in Russiagate media hysteria and, most porbably, in planning and executing the
operation to entrap Flynn.
Notable quotes:
"... They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused ..."
"... Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors" went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the same agenda and script: ..."
"... Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked Ukrainian artillery apps; they then retracted it . ..."
"... The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered "sex for favors" were totally false (and scurrilous). ..."
BuzzFeed was once notorious for
traffic-generating "listicles," but has since become an impressive outlet for deep
investigative journalism under editor-in-chief Ben Smith. That outlet was prominently in the
news this week thanks to its "bombshell" story about President Trump and Michael Cohen: a story
that, like so many others of its kind,
blew up in its face , this time when the typically mute Robert Mueller's office took the
extremely rare step to
label its key claims "inaccurate."
But in homage to BuzzFeed's past viral glory, following are the top ten worst media failures
in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by
the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news,
the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger
they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets
(particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most
embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is
so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end
with (dis)honorable mention status.
Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave
threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media
outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would
expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories.
That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media
clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors"
went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the
same agenda and script:
10. RT Hacked Into and Took Over C-SPAN (Fortune)
On June 12, 2017, Fortune claimed that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN and that
C-SPAN "confirmed" it had been hacked. The whole story was false:
Holy shit. Russia state propaganda (RT) "hacked" into C-SPAN feed and took over for a good
40 seconds today? In middle of live broadcast. https://t.co/pwWYFoDGDU
9. Russian Hackers Invaded the U.S. Electricity Grid to Deny Vermonters Heat
During the Winter (WashPost)
On December 30, 2016, the Washington Post reported that "Russian hackers penetrated the U.S.
electricity grid through a utility in Vermont," causing predictable outrage and panic, along
with threats from U.S. political leaders. But then they kept diluting the story with editor's
notes – to admit that the malware was found on a laptop not connected to the U.S.
electric grid at all – until finally acknowledging, days later, that the whole story was
false, since the malware had nothing to do with Russia or with the U.S. electric grid:
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
https://t.co/LED11lL7ej
8. A New, Deranged, Anonymous Group Declares Mainstream Political Sites on the
Left and Right to be Russian Propaganda Outlets and WashPost Touts its Report to Claim Massive
Kremlin Infiltration of the Internet (WashPost)
On November 24, 2016, the Washington Post
published one of the most inflammatory, sensationalistic stories to date about Russian
infiltration into U.S. politics using social media, accusing "more than 200 websites" of being
"routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of
at least 15 million Americans." It added: "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation
campaign [on Facebook] were viewed more than 213 million times."
Unfortunately for the paper, those statistics were provided by a new, anonymous group that
reached these conclusions by classifying long-time, well-known sites – from the Drudge
Report to Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig,
and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul
Institute. – as "Russian propaganda outlets," producing one of the longest Editor's Note
in memory appended to the top of the article (but
not until two weeks later , long after the story was mindlessly spread all throughout the
media ecosystem):
Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent
researchers https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q
Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave
permission to them to call Bellingcat "allies" https://t.co/jQKnWzjrBR
7. Trump Aide Anthony Scaramucci is Involved in a Russian Hedge Fund Under
Senate Investigation (CNN)
On June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the
Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not. CNN retracted the story
and forced the three reporters who published it to leave the network. 6. Russia Attacked
U.S. "Diplomats" (i.e. Spies) at the Cuban Embassy Using a Super-Sophisticated Sonic Microwave
Weapon (NBC/MSNBC/CIA)
On September 11, 2017, NBC News and MSNBC
spread all over its airwaves a claim from its notorious CIA puppet Ken Dilanian that Russia
was behind a series of dastardly attacks on U.S. personnel at the Embassy in Cuba using a sonic
or microwave weapon so sophisticated and cunning that Pentagon and CIA scientists had no idea
what to make of it.
But then teams of neurologists began calling into doubt that these personnel had suffered
any brain injuries at all – that instead they appear to have experienced collective
psychosomatic symptoms – and then biologists published findings that the "strange sounds"
the U.S. "diplomats" reported hearing were identical to those emitted by a common Caribbean
male cricket during mating season.
An @NBCNews
exclusive: After more than a year of mystery, Russia is the main suspect in the sonic attacks
that sickened 26 U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials in Cuba. @MitchellReports has the
latest. pic.twitter.com/NEI9PJ9CpD
4. Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange Three Times in the Ecuadorian Embassy
and Nobody Noticed (Guardian/Luke Harding)
On November 27, 2018, the Guardian
published a major "bombshell" that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had somehow managed
to sneak inside one of the world's most surveilled buildings, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
and visit Julian Assange on three different occasions. Cable and online commentators
exploded.
Seven weeks later,
no other media outlet has confirmed this ; no video or photographic evidence has emerged;
the Guardian refuses to answer any questions; its leading editors have virtually gone into
hiding; other media outlets have expressed serious doubts about its veracity; and an Ecuadorian
official who worked at the embassy has called the story a complete fake:
Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, and visited around the time he joined Trump's campaign, the Guardian has been told.
https://t.co/Fc2BVmXipk
The Guardian reports that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks,
the same month that Manafort joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016, a meeting
that could carry vast implications for the Russia investigation https://t.co/pYawnv4MHH
3. CNN Explicitly Lied About Lanny Davis Being Its Source – For a Story
Whose Substance Was Also False: Cohen Would Testify that Trump Knew in Advance About the Trump
Tower Meeting (CNN)
On July 27, 2018, CNN
published a blockbuster story : that Michael Cohen was prepared to tell Robert Mueller that
President Trump knew in advanced about the Trump Tower meeting. There were, however, two
problems with this story: first, CNN got caught blatantly lying when its reporters claimed that
"contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment" (in fact, Davis
was one of CNN's key sources, if not its only source, for this story), and second, numerous
other outlets retracted the story after the source, Davis, admitted it was a lie. CNN, however,
to this date has refused to do either: 2. Robert Mueller Possesses Internal Emails and Witness Interviews Proving Trump
Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress (BuzzFeed)
BREAKING: President Trump personally directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie
to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow in order to obscure his
involvement. https://t.co/BEoMKiDypn
The allegation that the President of the United States may have suborned perjury before
our committee in an effort to curtail the investigation and cover up his business dealings
with Russia is among the most serious to date. We will do what's necessary to find out if
it's true. https://t.co/GljBAFqOjh
Listen, if Mueller does have multiple sources confirming Trump directed Cohen to lie to
Congress, then we need to know this ASAP. Mueller shouldn't end his inquiry, but it's about
time for him to show Congress his cards before it's too late for us to act. https://t.co/ekG5VSBS8G
To those trying to parse the Mueller statement: it's a straight-up denial. Maybe Buzzfeed
can prove they are right, maybe Mueller can prove them wrong. But it's an emphatic denial
https://t.co/EI1J7XLCJe
. @Isikoff :
"There were red flags about the BuzzFeed story from the get-go." Notes it was inconsistent
with Cohen's guilty plea when he said he made false statements about Trump Tower to Congress
to be "consistent" with Trump, not at his direction. pic.twitter.com/tgDg6SNPpG
We at The Post also had riffs on the story our reporters hadn't confirmed. One noted Fox
downplayed it; another said it "if true, looks to be the most damning to date for Trump." The
industry needs to think deeply on how to cover others' reporting we can't confirm
independently. https://t.co/afzG5B8LAP
Washington Post says Mueller's denial of BuzzFeed News article is aimed at the full story:
"Mueller's denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none
of those statements in the story are accurate." https://t.co/ene0yqe1mK
If you're one of the people tempted to believe the self-evidently laughable claim that
there's something "vague" or unclear about Mueller's statement, or that it just seeks to
quibble with a few semantic trivialities, read this @WashPost story about this https://t.co/0io99LyATS
pic.twitter.com/ca1TwPR3Og
You can spend hours parsing the Carr statement, but given how unusual it is for any DOJ
office to issue this sort of on the record denial, let alone this office, suspect it means
the story's core contention that they have evidence Trump told Cohen to lie is fundamentally
wrong.
New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive -- and now seriously
challenged -- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et
pic.twitter.com/7FJFT9D8fW
I can't speak to Buzzfeed's sourcing, but, for what it's worth, I declined to run with
parts of the narrative they conveyed based on a source central to the story repeatedly
disputing the idea that Trump directly issued orders of that kind.
1. Donald Trump Jr. Was Offered Advanced Access to the WikiLeaks Email Archive
(CNN/MSNBC)
The morning of December 9, 2017, launched
one of the most humiliating spectacles in the history of the U.S. media. With a tone so
grave and bombastic that it is impossible to overstate, CNN went on the air and announced a
major exclusive: Donald Trump, Jr. was offered by email advanced access to the trove of DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks – meaning before those emails were made public.
Within an hour, MSNBC's Ken Dilanian, using a tone somehow even more unhinged, purported to
have "independently confirmed" this mammoth, blockbuster scoop, which, they said, would have
been the smoking gun showing collusion between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the hacked
emails (while the YouTube clips have been removed, you can still watch one of the amazing MSNBC
videos
here ).
There was, alas, just one small problem with this massive, blockbuster story: it was totally
and completely false. The email which Trump, Jr. received that directed him to the WikiLeaks
archive was sent after WikiLeaks published it online for the whole world to see, not before.
Rather than some super secretive operative giving Trump, Jr. advanced access, as both CNN and
MSNBC told the public for hours they had confirmed, it was instead just some totally pedestrian
message from a random member of the public suggesting Trump, Jr. review documents the whole
world was already talking about. All of the anonymous sources CNN and MSNBC cited somehow all
got the date of the email wrong.
To date, when asked how they both could have gotten such a massive story so completely wrong
in the same way, both CNN and MSNBC have adopted the posture of the CIA by maintaining complete
silence and refusing to explain how it could possibly be that all of their "multiple,
independent sources" got the date wrong on the email in the same way, to be as incriminating
– and false – as possible. Nor, needless to say, will they identify their sources
who, in concert, fed them such inflammatory and utterly false information.
Sadly, CNN and MSNBC have deleted most traces of the most humiliating videos from the
internet, including demanding that YouTube remove copies. But enough survives to document just
what a monumental, horrifying, and utterly inexcusable debacle this was. Particularly amazing
is the clip of the CNN reporter (see below) having to admit the error for the first time, as he
awkwardly struggles to pretend that it's not the massive, horrific debacle that it so obviously
is:
Knowingly soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national for campaign
purposes violates the Federal Election Campaign Act. If it's worth over $2,000 then penalties
include fines & IMPRISONMENT. @DonaldJTrumpJr may be in bigly
trouble. #FridayFeeling
https://t.co/dRz6Ph17Er
CNN is leading the way in bashing BuzzFeed but it's worth remembering CNN had a
humiliation at least as big & bad: when they yelled that Trump Jr. had advanced access to
the WL archive (!): all based on a wrong date. They removed all the segments from YouTube,
but this remains: pic.twitter.com/0jiA50aIku
ABC News' Brian Ross is fired for
reporting Trump told Flynn to make contact with Russians when he was still a candidate;
in fact, Trump did that after he won.
The New York Times claimed Manafort provided
polling data to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a person "close to the Kremlin"; in fact, he
provided them to Ukrainians, not Russians.
Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked
Ukrainian artillery apps;
they then retracted it .
Bloomberg and the WSJ reported Mueller subpoenaed Deustche Bank for Trump's financial
records; the NYT said
that never happened .
Rachel Maddow devoted 20 minutes at the start of her show to very melodramatically
claiming a highly sophisticated party tried to trick her by sending her a fake Top Secret
document modeled after the one published by the Intercept, and said it could only have come
from the U.S. Government (or the Intercept) since the person obtained the document before it
was published by us and thus must have had special access to it; in fact,
Maddow and NBC completely misread the metadata on the document ; the fake sent to Maddow
was created after we published the document, and was sent to her by a random member of the
public who took the document from the Intercept's site and doctored it to see if she'd fall
for an obvious scam. Maddow's entire timeline, on which her whole melodramatic conspiracy
theory rested, was fictitious.
The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence
agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally
retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies --
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
AP claimed on February 2, 2018, that the Free Beacon commissioned the Steele Dossier;
they thereafter acknowledged that was false and
noted, instead: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was
initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until
after Democratic groups had begun funding it."
Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered
"sex for favors" were
totally false (and scurrilous).
After a Russian regional jet crashed on February 11, 2018, shortly after it took off from
Moscow, killing all 71 people aboard, Harvard Law Professor and frequent MSNBC contributor
Laurence Tribe
strongly implied Putin purposely caused the plane to go down in order to murder Sergei
Millian, a person vaguely linked to George Papadopoulos and Jared Kushner; in fact, Millian
was not on the plane nor, to date, has anyone claimed they had any evidence that Putin
ordered his own country's civilian passenger jet brought down.
Russiaphobia as a pathological reaction on the deep crisis of neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... The described lack of confidence was reflected in the exaggerated fear that Russia was capable of destroying the West's values. However, Russia and Putin were neither omnipresent nor threatening to destroy the United States' political system. ..."
"... Russia's basic motives remain defensive even when the Kremlin relies on assertive tactics. Russia's assertiveness, even in cyberspace, is of a reactive nature and is a response to US policies. ..."
"... Rather than fighting a full-scale information war with the West, Russia seeks to increase its status and strengthen its bargaining position in relations with the United States. 68 The Kremlin has been proposing to negotiate rules of cooperation in the cyber area since early in the twenty-first century. Motivated by an insistence on "cyber-sovereignty," Russia regularly proposes resolutions at the United Nations to prohibit "information aggression," In a 2011 letter to the United Nations General Assembly, Russia proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Information Security," stipulating that states subscribing to the code would pledge to "not use information and communications technologies and other information and communications networks to interfere with the internal affairs of other states or with the aim of undermining their political, economic and social stability." 69 ..."
"... Overall, what the Kremlin challenges is the United States' post–Cold War behavior that undermines Russia's status as a great power. Although Russia is not in a position to directly challenge the United States and the US-centered international order, the Kremlin hopes to gain external recognition as a great power by relying on low-cost methods and revealing the vulnerability of Western nations. Russia's capabilities and presence in global cyber and media space are limited, and the Kremlin is motivated by asymmetric deployment of its media, information, and cyber power. ..."
The chapter extends the argument about media and value conflict between Russia and the
United States to the age of Donald Trump. The new value conflict is assessed as especially
acute and exacerbated by the US partisan divide. The Russia issue became central because it
reflected both political partisanship and the growing value division between Trump voters and
the liberal establishment. In addition to explaining the new wave of American Russophobia, the
chapter analyzes Russia's own role and motives. The media are likely to continue the
ideological and largely negative coverage of Russia, especially if Washington and Moscow fail
to develop a pragmatic form of cooperation.
Keywords: Russia, Trump, US elections, narrative of collusion, partisan divide
This chapter addresses the new development in the US media perception of the Russian threat
following the election of Donald Trump as the United States' president. The election revealed
that US national values could no longer be viewed as predominantly liberal and favoring the
global promotion of democracy, as supported by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and
Barack Obama. During and after the election, the liberal media sought to present Moscow as not
only favoring Trump but being responsible for his election and even ruling on behalf of the
Kremlin. Those committed to a liberal worldview led the way in criticizing Russia and Putin for
assaulting liberal democratic values globally and inside the United States. This chapter argues
that the Russia issue became so central in the new internal divide because it reflects both
political partisanship and the growing division between the values of Trump voters and those of
the liberal establishment. The domestic political struggle has exacerbated the divide. Russia's
otherness, again, has highlighted values of "freedom," seeking to preserve the confidence of
the liberal self. (p.82)
The Narrative of Trump's "Collusion" with Russia
During the US presidential election campaign, American media developed yet another
perception of Russia as reflected in the narrative of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin.
1 Having originated in liberal media and building on the previous perceptions of
neo-Soviet autocracy and foreign threat, the new perception of Russia was that of the enemy
that won the war against the United States. By electing the Kremlin's favored candidate,
America was defeated by Russia. As a CNN columnist wrote, "The Russians really are here,
infiltrating every corner of the country, with the single goal of disrupting the American way
of life." 2 The two assumptions behind the new media narrative were that Putin was an
enemy and that Trump was compromised by Putin. The inevitable conclusion was that Trump could
not be a patriot and potentially was a traitor prepared to act against US interests.
The new narrative was assisted by the fact that Trump presented a radically different
perspective on Russia than Clinton and the US establishment. The American political class had
been in agreement that Russia displayed an aggressive foreign policy seeking to destroy the
US-centered international order. Influential politicians, both Republicans and Democrats,
commonly referred to Russian president Putin as an extremely dangerous KGB spy with no soul.
Instead, Trump saw Russia's international interests as not fundamentally different from
America's. He advocated that the United States to find a way to align its policies and
priorities in defeating terrorism in the Middle East -- a goal that Russia shared -- with the
Kremlin's. Trump promised to form new alliances to "unite the civilized world against Radical
Islamic Terrorism" and to eradicate it "completely from the face of the Earth." 3 He hinted that he was prepared to revisit the thorny issues of Western
sanctions against (p.83) the Russian economy and the recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia.
Trump never commented on Russia's political system but expressed his admiration for Putin's
leadership and high level of domestic support. 4
Capitalizing on the difference between Trump's views and those of the Democratic Party
nominee, Hillary Clinton, the liberal media referred to Trump as the Kremlin-compromised
candidate. Commentators and columnists with the New York Times , such as Paul Krugman,
referred to Trump as the "Siberian" candidate. 5 Commentators and pundits, including those with academic and political
credentials, developed the theory that the United States was under attack. The former
ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote in the Washington Post that Russia had
attacked "our sovereignty" and continued to "watch us do nothing" because of the partisan
divide. He compared the Kremlin's actions with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and warned that Russia was
likely to perform repeat assaults in 2018 and 2020. 6 The historian Timothy Snyder went further, comparing the election of Trump to
a loss of war, which Snyder said was the basic aim of the enemy. Writing in the New York
Daily News , he asserted, "We no longer need to wonder what it would be like to lose a war
on our own territory. We just lost one to Russia, and the consequence was the election of
Donald Trump." 7
The election of Trump prompted the liberal media to discuss Russia-related fears. The
leading theory was that Trump would now compromise America's interests and rule the country on
behalf of Putin. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called for actions against Russia
and praised "patriotic" Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for being tough on
Trump. 8 MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked whether Trump was actually under Putin's
control. Citing Trump's views and his associates' travel to Moscow, she told viewers, "We are
also starting to see (p.84) what may be signs of continuing [Russian] influence in our country,
not just during the campaign but during the administration -- basically, signs of what could be
a continuing operation." 9 Another New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, published a column
titled "There's a Smell of Treason in the Air," arguing that the FBI's investigation of the
Trump presidential campaign's collusion "with a foreign power so as to win an election" was an
investigation of whether such collusion "would amount to treason." 10 Responding to Trump's statement that his phone was tapped during the election
campaign, the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum tweeted that "Trump's insane
'GCHQ tapped my phone' theory came from . . . Moscow." McFaul and many others then endorsed and
retweeted the message. 11
To many within the US media, Trump's lack of interest in promoting global institutions and
his publicly expressed doubts that the Kremlin was behind cyberattacks on the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) served to exacerbate the problem. Several intelligence leaks to the
press and investigations by Congress and the FBI contributed to the image of a president who
was not motivated by US interests. The US intelligence report on Russia's alleged hacking of
the US electoral system released on January 8, 2017, served to consolidate the image of Russia
as an enemy. Leaks to the press have continued throughout Trump's presidency. Someone in the
administration informed the press that Trump called Putin to congratulate him on his victory in
elections on March 18, 2018, despite Trump's advisers' warning against making such a call.
12
In the meantime, investigations of Trump's alleged "collusion" with Russia were failing to
produce substantive evidence. Facts that some associates of Trump sought to meet or met with
members of Russia's government did not lead to evidence of sustained contacts or collaboration.
It was not proven that the Kremlin's "black dossier" on Trump compiled by British intelligence
officer (p.85) Christopher Steele and leaked to CNN was truthful. Russian activity on American
social networks such as Facebook and Twitter was not found to be conclusive in determining
outcomes of the elections. 13 In February 2018, a year after launching investigation, Special Counsel
Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals for allegedly interfering in the US 2016
presidential elections, yet their connection to Putin or Trump was not established. On March
12, 2018, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr stated that he had not yet seen
any evidence of collusion. 14 Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the Russia investigation,
announced the end of the committee's probe of Russian meddling in the election. 15
Trump was also not acting toward Russia in the way the US media expected. His views largely
reflected those of the military and national security establishment and disappointed some of
his supporters. 16 The US National Security Strategy and new Defense Strategy presented Russia
as a leading security threat, alongside China, Iran, and North Korea. The president made it
clear that he wanted to engage in tough bargaining with Russia by insisting on American terms.
17 Instead of improving ties with Russia, let alone acting on behalf of the
Kremlin, Trump contributed to new crises in bilateral relations that had to do with the two
sides' principally different perceptions. While the Kremlin expected Washington to normalize
relations, the United States assumed Russia's weakness and expected it to comply with
Washington's priorities regarding the Middle East, Ukraine, and Afghanistan and nuclear and
cyber issues. 18 Trump also authorized the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in US
history and ordered several missile strikes against Assad's Russia-supported positions in
Syria, each time provoking a crisis in relations with Moscow. Even Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, whom Rachel Maddow suspected of being appointed on Putin's advice to "weaken" the
State Department and "bleed out" (p.86) the FBI, 19 was replaced by John Bolton. The latter's foreign policy reputation was that
of a hawk, including on Russia. 20
Responding to these developments, the media focused on fears of being attacked by the
Kremlin and on Trump not doing enough to protect the country. These fears went beyond the
alleged cyber interference in the US presidential elections and included infiltration of
American media and social networks and attacks on congressional elections and the country's
most sensitive infrastructure, such as electric grids, water-processing plants, banking
networks, and transportation facilities. In order to prevent such developments, media
commentators and editorial writers recommended additional pressures on the Kremlin and
counteroffensive operations. 21 One commentator recommended, as the best defense from Russia's plans to
interfere with another election in the United States, launching a cyberattack on Russia's own
presidential elections in March 2018, to "disrupt the stability of Vladimir Putin's regime."
22 A New York Times editorial summarized the mood by challenging
President Trump to confront Russia further: "If Mr. Trump isn't Mr. Putin's lackey, it's past
time for him to prove it." 23 The burden of proof was now on Trump's shoulders.
Opposition to the
"Collusion" Narrative
In contrast to highly critical views of Russia in the dominant media, conservative,
libertarian, and progressive sources offered different assessments. Initially, opposition to
the collusion narrative came from the alternative media, yet gradually -- in response to scant
evidence of Trump's collusion -- it incorporated voices within the mainstream.
The conservative media did not support the view that Russia "stole" elections and presented
Trump as a patriot who wanted to make America great rather than develop "cozy" relationships
with (p.87) the Kremlin. Writing in the American Interest , Walter Russell Mead argued
that Trump aimed to demonstrate the United States' superiority by capitalizing on its military
and technological advantages. He did not sound like a Russian mole. Challenging the liberal
media, the author called for "an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press" and wrote
that "if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much
more like Barack Obama's." 24 Instead of viewing Trump as compromised by the Kremlin, sources such
Breitbart and Fox News attributed the blame to the deep state, "the complex of
bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats," including the intelligence agencies, that seeks to
"derail, or at least to de-legitimize, the Trump presidency" by engaging in accusations and
smear campaigns. 25
Echoing Trump's own views, some conservatives expressed their admiration for Putin as a
dynamic leader superior to Obama. In particular, they praised Putin for his ability to defend
Russia's "traditional values" and great-power status. 26 Neoconservative and paleoconservative publications like the National
Review , the Weekly Standard, Human Events Online , and others critiqued Obama's
"feckless foreign policy," characterized by "fruitless accommodationism," contrasting it with
Putin's skilled and calculative geopolitical "game of chess." 27 A Washington Post / ABC News poll revealed that among Republicans, 75%
approved of Trump's approach on Russia relative; 40% of all respondents approved. 28 This did not mean that conservatives and Republicans were "infiltrated" by
the Kremlin. Mutual Russian and American conservative influences were limited and
nonstructured. 29 The approval of Putin as a leader by American conservatives meant that they
shared a certain commonality of ideas and were equally critical of liberal media and
globalization. 30
Progressive and libertarian media also did not support the narrative of collusion. Gary
Leupp at CounterPunch found the (p.88) narrative to be serving the purpose of reviving
and even intensifying "Cold War-era Russophobia," with Russia being an "adversary" "only in
that it opposes the expansion of NATO, especially to include Ukraine and Georgia." 31 Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com questioned the narrative by pointing to
Russia's bellicose rhetoric in response to Trump's actions. 32 Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani at Intercept reminded readers that,
overall, Trump proved to be far more confrontational toward Russia than Obama, thereby
endangering America. 33 In particular Trump severed diplomatic ties with Russia, armed Ukraine,
appointed anti-Russia hawks, such as ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, National
Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Michal Pompeo to key foreign policy
positions, antagonized Russia's Iranian allies, and imposed tough sanctions against Russian
business with ties to the Kremlin. 34
The dominant liberal media ignored opposing perspectives or presented them as compromised by
Russia. For instance, in amplifying the view that Putin "stole" the elections, the
Washington Post sought to discredit alternative sources of news and commentaries as
infiltrated by the Kremlin's propaganda. On November 24, 2016, the newspaper published an
interview with the executive director of a new website, PropOrNot, who preferred to remain
anonymous, and claimed that the Russian government circulated pro-Trump articles before the
election. Without providing evidence on explaining its methodology, the group identified more
than two hundred websites that published or echoed Russian propaganda, including WikiLeaks and
the Drudge Report , left-wing websites such as CounterPunch, Truthout, Black Agenda
Report, Truthdig , and Naked Capitalism , as well as libertarian venues such as
Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. 35 Another mainstream liberal outlet, CNN, warned the American people to be
vigilant against the Kremlin's alleged efforts to spread propaganda: "Enormous numbers of
(p.89) Americans are not only failing to fight back, they are also unwitting collaborators --
reading, retweeting, sharing and reacting to Russian propaganda and provocations every day."
36
However, voices of dissent were now heard even in the mainstream media. Masha Gessen of the
New Yorker said that Trump's tweet about Robert Mueller's indictments and Moscow's
"laughing its ass off" was "unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate." 37 She pointed out that Russians of all ideological convictions "are remarkably
united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous." 38 The editor of the influential Politico , Blake Hounshell, confessed
that he was a Russiagate skeptic because even though "Trump was all too happy to collude with
Putin," Mueller's team never found a "smoking gun." 39 In reviewing the book on Russia's role in the 2016 election Russian
Roulette , veteran New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers noted that the Kremlin's
meddling "simply exploited the vulgarity already plaguing American political campaigns" and
that the veracity of many accusations remained unclear. 40
Explaining Russophobia
The high-intensity Russophobia within the American media, overblown even by the standards of
previous threat narratives, could no longer be explained by differences in national values or
by bilateral tensions. The new fear of Russia also reflected domestic political polarization
and growing national unease over America's identity and future direction.
The narrative of collusion in the media was symptomatic of America's declining confidence in
its own values. Until the intervention in Iraq in 2004, optimism and a sense of confidence
prevailed in American social attitudes, having survived even the terrorist attack on the United
States on September 11, 2001. The (p.90) country's economy was growing and its position in the
world was not challenged. However, the disastrous war in Iraq, the global financial crisis of
2008, and Russia's intervention in Georgia in August 2008 changed that. US leadership could no
longer inspire the same respect, and a growing number of countries viewed it as a threat to
world peace. 41 Internally, the United States was increasingly divided. Following
presidential elections in November 2016, 77% of Americans perceived their country as "greatly
divided on the most important values." 42 The value divide had been expressed in partisanship and political
polarization long before the 2016 presidential elections. 43 The Russia issue deepened this divide. According to a poll taken in October
2017, 63% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans, viewed "Russia's power and influence" as a
major threat to the well-being of the United States. 44
During the US 2016 presidential elections, Russia emerged as a convenient way to accentuate
differences between Democratic and Republican candidates, which in previous elections were
never as pronounced or defining. The new elections deepened the partisan divide because of
extreme differences between the two main candidates, particularly on Russia. Donald Trump
positioned himself as a radical populist promising to transform US foreign policy and "drain
the swamp" in Washington. His position on Russia seemed unusual because, by election time, the
Kremlin had challenged the United States' position in the world by annexing Crimea, supporting
Ukrainian separatism, and possibly hacking the DNC site.
The Russian issue assisted Clinton in stressing her differences from Trump. Soon after it
became known that DNC servers were hacked, she embraced the view that Russia was behind the
cyberattacks. She accused Russia of "trying to wreak havoc" in the United States and threatened
retaliation. 45 In his turn, Trump used Russia to challenge Clinton's commitment to national
security (p.91) and ability to serve as commander in chief. In particular, he drew public
attention to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private server for professional
correspondence, and even noted sarcastically that the Russians should find thirty thousand
missing emails belonging to her. The latter was interpreted by many in liberal media and
political circles as a sign of Trump's being unpatriotic. 46 Clinton capitalized on this interpretation. She referred to the issue of
hacking as the most important one throughout the campaign and challenged Trump to agree with
assessments of intelligence agencies that cyberattacks were ordered by the Kremlin. She
questioned Trump's commitments to US national security and accused him of being a "puppet" for
President Putin. 47 Following Trump's victory, Clinton told donors that her loss should be partly
attributed to Putin and the election hacks directed by him. 48
Clinton's arguments fitted with the overall narrative embraced by the mainstream media since
roughly 2005 characterizing Russia as abusive and aggressive. Clinton viewed Russia as an
oppressive autocratic power that was aggressive abroad to compensate for domestic weaknesses.
Previously, in her book Hard Choices , then-secretary of state Clinton described Putin
as "thin-skinned and autocratic, resenting criticism and eventually cracking down on dissent
and debate." 49 This view was shared by President Obama, who publicly referred to Russia as a
"regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out
of weakness." 50 During the election's campaign, Clinton argued that the United States should
challenge Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria with the objective of removing Assad from
power, strengthening sanctions against the Russian economy, and providing lethal weapons to
Ukraine in order to contain the potential threat of Russia's military invasion.
Following the elections, the partisan divide deepened, with liberal establishment attacking
the "unpatriotic" Trump. Having (p.92) lost the election, Clinton partly attributed Trump's
victory to the role of Russia and advocated an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. In
February 2017 the Clinton-influenced Center for American Progress brought on a former State
Department official to run a new Moscow Project. 51 As acknowledged by the New Yorker , members of the Clinton inner
circle believed that the Obama administration deliberately downplayed DNC hacking by the
Kremlin. "We understand the bind they were in," one of Clinton's senior advisers said. "But
what if Barack Obama had gone to the Oval Office, or the East Room of the White House, and
said, 'I'm speaking to you tonight to inform you that the United States is under attack . . .'
A large majority of Americans would have sat up and taken notice . . . it is bewildering -- it
is baffling -- it is hard to make sense of why this was not a five-alarm fire in the White
House." 52
In addition to Clinton, many other members of the Washington establishment, including some
Republicans, spread the narrative of Russia "attacking" America. Republican politicians who
viewed Clinton's defeat and the hacking attacks in military terms included those of chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who stated, "When you attack a country, it's
an act of war," 53 and former vice president Dick Cheney, who called Russia's alleged
interference in the US election "a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin" that "in some
quarters that would be considered an act of war." 54 A number of Democrats also engaged in the rhetoric of war, likening the
Russian "attack," as Senator Ben Cardin did, to a "political Pearl Harbor." 55
Rumors and leaks, possibly by members of US intelligence agencies, 56 and activities of liberal groups that sought to discredit Trump contributed
to the Russophobia. In addition to the DNC hacking accusations, many fears of Russia in the
media were based on the assumption that contacts, let alone cooperation with the (p.93)
Kremlin, was unpatriotic and implied potentially "compromising" behavior: praise of Putin as a
leader, possible business dealings with Russian "oligarchs," and meetings with Russian
officials such Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. 57
There were therefore two sides to the Russia story in the US liberal media -- rational and
emotional. The rational side had to do with calculations by Clinton-affiliated circles and
anti-Russian groups pooling their resources to undermine Trump and his plans to improve
relations with Russia. Among others, these resources included dominance within the liberal
media and leaks by the intelligence community. The emotional side was revealed by the liberal
elites' values and ability to promote fears of Russia within the US political class and the
general public. Popular emotions of fear and frustration with Russia already existed in the
public space due to the old Cold War memories, as well as disturbing post–Cold War
developments that included wars in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. In part because of these
memories, factions such as those associated with Clinton were successful in evoking in the
public liberal mind what historian Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style" or "the sense
of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." 58 Mobilized by liberal media to pressure Trump, these emotions became an
independent factor in the political struggle inside Washington. The public display of fear and
frustration with Russia and Trump could only be sustained by a constant supply of new
"suspicious" developments and intense discussion by the media.
Russia's Role and
Motives
Russia's "attacking" America and Trump's "colluding" with the Kremlin remained poorly
substantiated. Taken together, the DNC hacking, Trump's and Putin's mutual praise, and Trump
associates' (p.94) contacts with Russian officials implied Kremlin infiltration of the United
States' internal politics. Yet viewed separately, each was questionable and unproven. Some of
these points could have also been made about Hillary Clinton, who had ties to Russian -- not to
mention Saudi Arabian -- business circles and Ukrainian politicians. 59 Political views cannot be counted as evidence. Contacts with Russian
officials could have been legitimate exchanges of views about two countries' interests and
potential cooperation. Even the CIA- and the FBI-endorsed conclusion that Russia attacked the
DNC servers was questioned by some observers on the grounds that forensic evidence was lacking
and that it relied too much on findings by one cybersecurity company. 60 In general, discussion of Russia in the US media lacked nuances and a sense
of proportion. As Jesse Walker, an editor at Reason magazine and author of The United
States of Paranoia , pointed out,
There's a difference between thinking that Moscow may have hacked the Democratic National
Committee and thinking that Moscow actually hacked the election, between thinking the
president may have Russian conflicts of interest and thinking he's a Russian puppet . . .
when someone like the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares that Putin "installed"
Donald Trump as president, he's moving out of the realm of plausible plots and into the world
of fantasy. Similarly, Clinton's warning that Trump could be Putin's "puppet" leaped from an
imaginable idea, that Putin wanted to help her rival, to the much more dubious notion that
Putin thought he could control the impulsive Trump. (Trump barely seems capable of
controlling himself.) 61
The loose and politically tendentious nature of discussions, circulation of questionable
leaks and dossiers complied by unidentified (p.95) individuals, and lack of serious evidence
led a number of observers to conclude that the Russia story was more about stopping Trump than
about Russia. The Russian scandal was symptomatic of the poisonous state of bilateral relations
that Democrats exploited for the purpose of derailing Trump. US-Russia relations became a
hostage of partisan domestic politics. As one liberal and tough critic of Putin wrote,
Democratic lawmakers' rhetoric of war in connection with the 2016 elections "places Republicans
-- who often characterize themselves as more hawkish on Russia and defense -- in a bind as they
try to defend to the new administration's strategy towards Moscow." 62 Another observer noted that Russiagate performed "a critical function for
Trump's political foes," allowing "them to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they
either share his priorities or have no viable alternative." 63
The described lack of confidence was reflected in the exaggerated fear that Russia was
capable of destroying the West's values. However, Russia and Putin were neither omnipresent nor
threatening to destroy the United States' political system. A number of analysts, such as Mark Schrad, identified fears of Russia as "increasingly hysterical fantasies" and argued that
Russia was not a global menace. 64 If the Kremlin was indeed behind the cyberattacks, it was not for the reasons
commonly broached. Rather than trying to subvert the US system, it sought to defend its own
system against what it perceived as a US policy of changing regimes and meddling in Russia's
internal affairs. The United States has a long history of covert activities in foreign
countries. 65 Washington's establishment has never followed the advice given by prominent
American statesmen such as George Kennan to let Russians "be Russians" and "work out their
internal problems in their own manner." 66 Instead, the United States assumes that America defines the rules and
boundaries of proper behavior in international politics, while others must simply follow the
rules.
(p.96) Russia's basic motives remain defensive even when the Kremlin relies on assertive
tactics. Russia's assertiveness, even in cyberspace, is of a reactive nature and is a response
to US policies. Experts observe that Russia's conception of cyber and other informational power
serves the overall purpose of protecting national sovereignty from encroachments by the United
States. 67Rather than fighting a full-scale information war with the West, Russia seeks
to increase its status and strengthen its bargaining position in relations with the United
States. 68 The Kremlin has been proposing to negotiate rules of cooperation in the cyber
area since early in the twenty-first century. Motivated by an insistence on
"cyber-sovereignty," Russia regularly proposes resolutions at the United Nations to prohibit
"information aggression," In a 2011 letter to the United Nations General Assembly, Russia
proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Information Security," stipulating that states
subscribing to the code would pledge to "not use information and communications technologies
and other information and communications networks to interfere with the internal affairs of
other states or with the aim of undermining their political, economic and social stability."
69
Overall, what the Kremlin challenges is the United States' post–Cold War behavior that
undermines Russia's status as a great power. Although Russia is not in a position to directly
challenge the United States and the US-centered international order, the Kremlin hopes to gain
external recognition as a great power by relying on low-cost methods and revealing the
vulnerability of Western nations. Russia's capabilities and presence in global cyber and media
space are limited, and the Kremlin is motivated by asymmetric deployment of its media,
information, and cyber power.
From comments to the podcast: "Attempting to damage and/or remove a sitting US President
with a political and legal hoax, from within, is a seditious attack against the United States
of America."
Starting at minute 20 interview of Svetlana and Chuck makes the point that leak of the
call to the press was to sabotage Flynn and the Trump administration. The PTB knew very early
on that Flynn was not a Russian asset.
"... The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed, Biden's name is on the unmasking list. ..."
"... The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national security adviser. ..."
"... That included the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of the Obama administration. ..."
"... That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was ultimately found to lack a credible basis. ..."
"... But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned. Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials. ..."
"... While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported 10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough ..."
"... The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation. ..."
The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking
to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There
seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former
President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed,
Biden's name is on the unmasking list.
The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling
details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national
security adviser. This week, however, a letter revealed another unsettling detail. Among over
three dozen Obama administration officials seeking to "unmask" Flynn in the investigation was
former Vice President Joe
Biden . This revelation came less than a day after Biden denied any involvement in the
investigation of Flynn. It also follows a disclosure that President Obama was aware of that
investigation.
For three years, many in the media have expressed horror at the notion of the Trump campaign
colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election. We know there was never credible evidence
of such collusion. In recently released transcripts, a long list of Obama administration
officials admitted they never saw any evidence of such Russian collusion. That included the
testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media
with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of
the Obama administration.
The media covered her concern that this evidence would be lost "if they found out how we
knew what we knew" about Trump campaign officials "dealing with Russians." Yet in her
classified testimony under oath, she said she did not know anything. Farkas is now running for
Congress in New York and highlighting her role in raising "alarm" over collusion. As much of
the media blindly pushed this story, a worrying story unfolded over the use of federal power to
investigate political opponents.
There is very little question that the response by the media to such a story would have been
overwhelming if George Bush and his administration had targeted the Obama campaign figures with
secret surveillance .
That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence
to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was
ultimately found to lack a credible basis.
But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned.
Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed
his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was
later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials.
Yet none of this matters as the media remains fully invested in the original false
allegations of collusion. If Obama administration officials were to be questioned now, the
coverage and judgment of the media may be placed into question, as even this latest disclosure
from the investigation of the unmasking request of Biden will not alter the media
narrative.
Unmasking occurs when an official asks an intelligence agency to remove anonymous
designations hiding the identity of an individual. This masking is a very important protection
of the privacy of American citizens who are caught up in national security surveillance. The
importance of this privacy protection is being dismissed by media figures, like Andrea
Mitchell, who declared the Biden story to be nothing more than gaslighting.
While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported
10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less
common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Seeking unmasking
information that was likely to reveal the name of a political opponent and possibly damage the
Trump administration raises a concern. More importantly, it adds a detail of the scope of
interest and involvement in an investigation that targeted Flynn without any compelling
evidence of a crime or collusion.
The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively
followed the investigation.
Atlantic Council senior fellow, Congressional candidate, and Russia conspiracy theorist
Evelyn Farkas is desperately trying to salvage her reputation after recently released
transcripts from her closed-door 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed
she totally lied on national TV .
In March of 2017, Farkas confidently told MSNBC 's Mika Brzezinski: " The Trump folks, if
they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians , that they
would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would not longer have access to
that intelligence ."
Except, during testimony to the House, Farkas admitted she lied . When pressed by former
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on why she said 'we' - referring to the US government, Farkas said she
"didn't know anything."
In short, she was either illegally discussing US intelligence matters with her "former
colleagues," or she made the whole thing up.
Now, Farkas is in damage control mode - writing in the
Washington Post that her testimony demonstrated "that I had not leaked intelligence and
that my early intuition about Trump-Kremlin cooperation was valid.' She also claims that her
comments to MSNBC were based on "media reports and statements by Obama administration officials
and the intelligence community," which had "began unearthing connections between Trump's
campaign and Russia."
Farkas is now blaming a 'disconcerting nexus between Russia and the reactionary right,' for
making her look bad (apparently Trey Gowdy is part of the "reactionary right" for asking her
who she meant by "we").
Attacks against me came first on Twitter and other social media platforms, from far-right
sources. Forensics data I was shown suggested at least one entity had Russian ties . The
attacks increased in quantity and ferocity until Fox News and Trump-allied Republicans --
higher-profile, and more mainstream, sources -- also criticized me .
...
Trump surrogates, including former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski ,
Donald Trump Jr. and Fox
News hosts such as Tucker Carlson have essentially accused me
of treason for being one of the "fraudulent originators" of the "Russia hoax." -Evelyn
Farkas
She then parrots the Democratic talking point that the attacks she's received are part of
Trump's larger "Obamagate" allegations - " a narrative that distracts attention from his
administration's disastrous pandemic response and attempts to defect blame for Russian
interference onto the Obama administration" (Obama told Putin to ' cut it out ' after all).
Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar
and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative outlets which have
called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that
right-wing pundits began pumping accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up. Within a day,
Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter
accounts boosting attacks have posted in unison, a sign of inauthentic social media
behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced
now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the
largest, most divisive hoax in US history - which was based on faulty intelligence that
includes crowdstrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier
based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrBoompi, 18 minutes ago
Lying is a common occurrence on MSNBC. Farkas was just showing her party she is qualified
for a more senior position.
chubbar, 23 minutes ago
My opinion, based on zero facts, is that the lie she told was to Gowdy. She had to say she
lied about having intelligence data or she'd be looking at a felony along with whomever she
was talking to in the US gov't. You just know these cocksuckers in the resistance don't give
a **** about laws or fairness, it's all about getting Trump. So they set up an informal
network to get classified intelligence from the Obama holdovers out into the wild where these
assholes could use it against Trump and the gov't operations. Treason. She needs to be
executed for her efforts!
LetThemEatRand, 59 minutes ago
This whole thing reminds me of a fan watching their team play a championship game. If the
ref makes a bad call and their team wins, they don't care. And if the ref makes a good call
and their team loses, they blame the ref. No one cares about the truth or the facts. That in
a nutshell is politics in the US. If you believe that anyone will "switch sides" or admit the
ref made a bad call or a good call, you're smoking the funny stuff.
mtumba, 50 minutes ago
It's a natural response to a corrupt system.
When the system is wholly corrupt so that truth doesn't matter, what else is there to care
about other than your side winning?
Hussein isn't sweating. He believes he's untouchable. He's that arrogant. He was a
Trojan horse and has done irrefutable damage to our Constitution and our country.
I have to echo Greg Gutfeld's sentiments on Adam Schiff: When the HELL is someone going to
hold him accountable for the Three-Year-Schiff-Show the United States has had to go
through??!?!?
He needs to be charged AT LEAST with leaking classified damnit!
And then all the other legal lies he held firm to! My last intelligence nerve was pressed
hard with that.....and yet, there he continues lying his ass off protected (for now) by
Congress! Elections CANNOT come quick enough! Can't wait to vote this year!
"... "Did [ FBI Director James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney general. ..."
"... "No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not have come to the attorney general for that." ..."
"... Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the Russia probe, seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he asked. ..."
"... "I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him." ..."
"... "Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with [the Department of Justice ]." ..."
"... Ms. Yates told the FBI that the interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified. ..."
"... During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House. ..."
"... Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot: The Justice Department inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a dozen instances of FBI personnel submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the Steele dossier. ..."
Newly released documents show FBI agents
operated on autopilot in 2016 and 2017 while targeting President Trump and his campaign with
little or no Justice Department guidance
for such a momentous investigation.
Loretta E. Lynch, President Obama's attorney general, said she never knew the FBI
was placing wiretaps on a Trump campaign volunteer or using the dossier claims of former
British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to put the
entire Trump world under suspicion. Mr. Steele was handled by Fusion
GPS and paid with funds from the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
"I don't have a recollection of briefings on Fusion GPS or Mr. Steele ," Ms. Lynch told the
House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence in October 2017. "I don't have any information on that,
and I don't have a recollection being briefed on that."
Under pressure from acting Director of National Intelligence
Richard A. Grenell, the committee last week released transcripts of her testimony and that of
more than 50 other witnesses in 2017 and 2018, when Republicans controlled the Trump-
Russia
investigation.
Ms. Lynch also testified that she had no knowledge the FBI had taken the
profound step of opening an investigation, led by agent Peter Strzok, into the Trump campaign
on July 31, 2016.
"Did [ FBI Director
James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence
investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney
general.
"No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not
have come to the attorney general for that."
Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the
Russia probe,
seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he
asked.
"I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a
recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him."
Attorney General William P. Barr has changed the rules. He announced that the attorney
general now must approve any FBI decision to
investigate a presidential campaign.
Ms. Lynch's testimony adds to the picture of an insular, and sometimes misbehaving,
FBI as its agents
searched for evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the
2016 election to damage Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton .
In documents filed by the Justice Department last
week, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates expressed dismay that Mr. Comey would
dispatch two agents, including Mr. Strzok, on Jan. 24, 2017, to interview incoming National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn at the White House.
Ms. Yates, interviewed by FBI agents
assigned to the Robert Mueller special counsel probe, said Mr. Comey notified her only after
the fact.
"Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview
report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been
coordinated with [the Department of Justice
]."
Ms. Yates told the FBI that the
interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified.
During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such
notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't
have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House.
Mr. Barr filed court papers asking U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the
Flynn case and his guilty plea to lying to Mr. Strzok about phone calls with Russian Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak. Mr. Strzok and other FBI personnel
planned the Flynn interview as a near ambush with a goal of prompting him to lie and getting
fired, according to new court filings.
Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot:
The Justice Department
inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a
dozen instances of FBI personnel
submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For
example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny
by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the
Steele
dossier.
The far-fetched dossier was the one essential piece of evidence required to obtain four
surveillance warrants on campaign volunteer Carter Page, according to Justice Department
Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz. The Mueller and Horowitz reports have discredited the
dossier's dozen conspiracy claims against the president and his allies.
Mr. Schiff, now chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence , had held on
to the declassified transcripts for more than a year. Under pressure from Republicans and Mr.
Grenell, he released the 6,000 pages on the hectic day Mr. Barr moved to end the Flynn
prosecution.
The closed-door testimony included witnesses such as Mr. Obama's national security adviser,
a United Nations ambassador, the nation's top spy and the FBI deputy
director. There were also Clinton campaign chieftains and
lawyers.
The transcripts' most often-produced headline: Obama investigators never saw evidence of
Trump conspiracy between the time the probe was opened until they left office in mid-January
2017.
"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was
plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," former Director of
National Intelligence James
R. Clapper told the committee .
Mr. Clapper is a paid CNN analyst who has implied repeatedly and without evidence that Mr.
Trump is a Russian spy and a traitor. The Mueller report contained no evidence that Mr. Trump
is a Russian agent or election conspirator.
Mr. Schiff told the country repeatedly that he had seen evidence of Trump collusion that
went beyond circumstantial. Mr. Mueller did not.
Mr. Schiff was a big public supporter of Mr. Steele 's dossier, which
relied on a Moscow main source and was fed by deliberate Kremlin disinformation against Mr.
Trump, according to the Horowitz report.
Trump Tower
One of Mr. Schiff's pieces of evidence of a conspiracy "in plain sight" is the meeting
Donald Trump
Jr. took with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on June 9, 2016.
The connections are complicated but, simply put, a Russian friend of the Trumps' said she
might have dirt on Mrs. Clinton . At the time, Ms.
Veselnitskaya was in New York representing a rich Russian accused by the Justice Department of
money laundering. To investigate, she hired Fusion GPS -- the same firm that retained Mr.
Steele
to damage the Trump campaign.
The meeting was brief and seemed to be a ruse to enable Ms. Veselnitskaya to pitch an end to
Obama-era economic sanctions that hurt her client. Attending were campaign adviser Paul
Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Anatoli Samochornov. Mr. Samochornov is a dual
citizen of Russia
and the U.S. who serves as an interpreter to several clients, including Ms. Veselnitskaya and
the State Department.
Mr. Samochornov was the Russian lawyer's interpreter that day. His recitation of events
basically backs the versions given by the Trump associates, according to a transcript of his
November 2017 committee testimony.
The meeting lasted about 20 minutes. Ms. Veselnitskaya briefly talked about possible illegal
campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton . Manafort, busy on his
cellphone, remarked that the contributions would not be illegal. Mr. Kushner left after a few
minutes.
Then, Rinat Akhmetshin, a lobbyist, made the case for ditching sanctions. He linked that to
a move by Russian President Vladimir Putin to end a ban on Americans adopting Russian
children.
Mr. Trump Jr. said that issue would be addressed if his father was elected. In the end, the
Trump administration put more sanctions on Moscow's political and business operators.
"I've never heard anything about the elections being mentioned at that meeting at all or in
any subsequent discussions with Ms. Veselnitskaya," Mr. Samochornov testified.
No mask
One of the first things Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican, did to earn the animus of
Democrats and the liberal media was to visit the Trump White House to learn about "unmaskings"
by Obama appointees.
The National Security Agency, by practice, obscures the names of any Americans caught up in
the intercept of foreign communications. Flynn was unmasked in the top-secret transcript of his
Kislyak call so officials reading it would know who was on the line.
In reading intelligence reports, if government officials want the identity of an "American
person," they make a request to the intelligence community. The fear is that repeated requests
could indicate political purposes.
That suspicion is how Samantha Power ended up at the House intelligence committee witness
table. The former U.N. ambassador seemed to have broken records by requesting hundreds of
unmaskings, though the transcript did not contain the identities of the people she exposed.
She explained to the committee why
she needed to know.
"I am reading that intelligence with an eye to doing my job, right?" Ms. Power said.
"Whatever my job is, whatever I am focused on on a given day, I'm taking in the intelligence
to inform my judgment, to be able to advise the president on ISIL or on whatever, or to inform
how I'm going to try to optimize my ability to advance U.S. interests in New York."
She continued: "I can't understand the intelligence . Can you go
and ascertain who this is so I can figure out what it is I'm reading. You've made the
judgement, intelligence professionals, that I need to read this piece of intelligence, I'm
reading it, and it's just got this gap in it, and I didn't understand that. But I never
discussed any name that I received when I did make a request and something came back or when it
was annotated and came to me. I never discussed one of those names with any other
individual."
Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican, listened and then mentioned other officeholders,
such as the White House national security adviser and the secretary of state.
"There are lots of people who need to understand intelligence products, but the number of
requests they made, ambassador, don't approach yours," Mr. Gowdy said.
Ms. Power implied that members of her staff were requesting American identities and invoking
her name without her knowledge.
The dossier
By mid- to late 2017, the full story on the Democrats' dossier -- that it was riddled with
false claims of criminality that served, as Mr. Barr said, to sabotage the Trump White House --
was not known.
Mr. Steele claimed that there was
a far-reaching Trump- Russia conspiracy, that Mr. Trump was a
Russian spy, that Mr. Trump financed Kremlin computer hacking, that his attorney went to Prague
to pay hush money to Putin operatives, and that Manafort and Carter Page worked as a conspiracy
team.
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a Clinton operative, spread the inaccuracies all
over Washington: to the FBI , the
Justice
Department , Congress and the news media.
None of it proved true.
But to Clinton loyalists in 2017, the
dossier was golden.
"I was mostly focused in that meeting on, you know, the guy standing behind this material is
Christopher Steele ," campaign
foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said about a Fusion meeting. "He is the one who's judging
its credibility and veracity. You know him. What do you think, based on your conversations with
him? That's what I was really there to try and figure out. And Glenn was incredibly positive
about Steele and felt he was really
on to something and also felt that there was more out there to go find."
Clinton campaign attorney Marc
Elias vouched for the dossier, and its information spread to reporters. He met briefly with Mr.
Steele
during the election campaign.
"I thought that the information that he or they wished to convey was accurate and
important," Mr. Elias testified.
"So the information that Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele wished to
portray to the media in the fall of 2016 at that time, you thought, was accurate and
important?" he was asked.
"As I understand it," he replied.
Mr. Elias rejected allegations that the Clinton campaign conspired with
Russia by having
its operatives spread the Moscow-sourced dirt.
"I don't have enough knowledge about when you say that Russians were involved in the
dossier," he said to a questioner. "I mean that genuinely. I'm not privy to what information
you all have.
"It sounds like the suggestion is that Russia somehow gave information to the
Clinton
campaign vis-a-vis one person to one person, to another person, to another person, to me, to
the campaign. That strikes me as fanciful and unlikely, but perhaps as I said, I don't have a
security clearance. You all have facts and information that is not available to me. But I
certainly never had any hint or whiff."
Trump say that Brennan was one of the architect. Obama knew everything and probably directed
the color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it. ..."
Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will
eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am writing this review before having finished the
book. I've had the book for almost a year, but have only recently dared look through it. It
is massive. I bought the book because I have never believed in Obama, I always thought he was
the personification of the empty suit: lots of talk, little accomplishment. I finally turned
to this book when I realized I had been confused about when Obama had been a community
organizer. I thought it had been after Harvard Law, but he actually worked for a couple of
years before attending law school. Having checked out some of the later events, I ran across
his former girlfriend's asssertion that in 1986 he decided he was born to be President. This
sent me to the beginning of the book to try to find out how that happened. (Or even if it
did.) I'm not there yet, but I do have a handle on how the book was written and why it's so
massive.
Obama's supposed autobiographies have been pretty well debunked as "historical fiction."
They were not concerned with facts. Garrow's book is an antidote to the pretty fictional
accounts Obama has used to his advantage, and Garrow has made every effort to nail down as
many facts as possible. He not only has the facts, he interviews the participants, seeks out
multiple sources, and even checks the newspapers of the day when necessary. This makes for a
lot of verification of even the most insignificant details. But then again, we now have the
details of Obama's life, maybe more than we may have wanted. Garrow does not provide
analysis. He is concerned with the facts and only the facts as he's been able to verify them.
But Barack's has been an unusual life, and so maybe the details count.
Barack's Kenyan father came from a tribe that recognizes multiple wives. He left a first
wife in Kenya and married at least once in the US to Barack's mother. The marriage was at his
grandfather's insistence. They never lived together. In fact, Barack's mother never lived
with either of her husbands until she eventually followed the 2nd to Indonesia. But as long
as she was in Hawaii, she lived with her parents. The only exception was that about a month
after Barack's birth, she took her baby back to Washington State, where she had grown up, and
she lived there for the following year, while Barack's father was in Hawaii. As soon as he
left to attend Harvard, she returned to Hawaii with the baby and moved back in with her
parents. It is so unusual for a first time mother to move that far away from her own mother.
Most first time mothers are uncertain and anxious about taking care of a new baby.
I am struck that, once in Indonesia, Barack never picked up the language. By the 4th
grade, he was having trouble communicating with friends his own age. I thought that odd. When
I was 6, my family moved to northern Italy in June. In September, I was enrolled in the 1st
grade of an Italian school. By December, I could speak & write Italian. (Writing Italian
is pretty easy - it is spelled as it sounds.) My parents were never fluent and I was the
family interpreter during our three year stay there. But, given my own experience, I found it
very odd that Barack never learned Indonesian. He was there at the time to do so. God knows,
I've failed to learn any other language as an adult! You gotta do it as a kid for it to be
painless.
Barack's mother was unhappy with her 2nd husband when she perceived that he was becoming a
successful businessman. Most wives appreciate success. It generally comes with more money.
But that is not how Barack's mother viewed it.
Garrow confirms that Barack's grandfather's good friend in Hawaii was indeed an active
Communist with an extensive FBI dossier. The FBI was watching him, but never accused him of
espionage. Oahu is known for its naval bases, so I wondered. Garrow makes no mention of the
grandfather being a Communist, so we can assume that there is no verification of that. Just
that the two men were pretty close friends.
Being one of the few people who recognized Bill Ayres name when he appeared as a neighbor
& friend of the Obamas in Chicago, I looked up some of the Ayres association. Apparently,
Obama met Valerie Jarrett through the Ayres, who were close friends of her parents, and her
parents were on the left politically.
I am intrigued by this biography of our most opaque president. I'm not sure I'll make it
through the w-h-o-l-e book. But I do think that Obama's life was unusual enough to warrant
care that incidents are not taken out of context, so I might struggle through to the end. I'm
not sure how long that will take me. But I'm retired now, so perhaps this can be my
retirement project!
Book Reviewer , Reviewed in the United States on July 15, 2017
This book is brilliant because it was written by an author, David Garrow, who's not only
mastered the art of beautiful prose but also possesses unparalleled skills in researching his
subjects (which is why he won the Pulitzer for 'Bearing the Cross', the bio of Martin Luther
King, Jr.). Alas, this book is also sorrowful because it is clear Garrow began his biography
of Barack Hussein Obama honestly believing in the hope and change his subject promised - only
to be bitterly disappointed by the man his research ultimately uncovered. As 'Rising Star'
describes it, Obama began his life in Chicago as an idealistic community organizer whose
ambition was to change the world. Alas, this ambition was not realized when he failed to
secure any funding (a failure that would sadly be repeated again and again). Undeterred,
Obama simply shifted his focus to public office and prepared to run for the Illinois state
legislature. That position, he felt sure, would give him the funds he needed to make his
dreams come true. But there was a problem. The voters in Obama's district were black - and he
wasn't. That is, he was not perceived by them as such and, to be honest, Barack had never
thought of himself as black either. Up until the moment he first ran for public office,
Barack had never defined himself along racial lines but instead along emotional ones - that
of a lost child abandoned by his father and mother. By and large, Barack's life had been
devoid of black associations. He had next to no black friends growing up in Hawaii; in
college he'd persisted in avoiding black friendships, teachers and the black movement as a
whole. The black persona was simply not how he defined himself - but it would have to be if
he hoped to achieve public office in Chicago. What to do? Well, the solution which all of
Barack's advisers gave was for him to marry a woman who WAS black. Thus, Barack abandoned the
beautiful half-white, half-Japanese woman, Sheila Miyoshi Jager, whom he'd been living with
for nearly two years in Chicago (and whom he'd originally intended to marry) and instead
proposed marriage to Michelle Robinson. It was a political move which Barack would pay
bitterly for.
Michelle was not interested in politics, she hated it. What she loved was money. However,
in the beginning of their marriage she grudgingly acquiesced to Barack's low-paying position
with the Illinois State legislature because Michelle herself was earning a six-figure salary
at Sidley Austin. But then suddenly, mysteriously, Michelle left the firm AND forfeited her
law license (after barely 3 years of practice) to take a public job which paid barely
one-third of her old income. She was not pleased about this and immediately demanded that her
husband leave politics and get a job at a prestigious law firm that would bring in the salary
she craved. Barack balked at that and instead began working three jobs at once (state
legislature, law school professor and lawyer) to bring in the money. But it wasn't enough for
her. He then tried to placate her by promising her they would get rich from his book 'Dreams
Of My Father' (which Garrow takes great pains to insist was NOT written with the help of Bill
Ayers). Alas, the book was a flop. Michelle's anger at her husband's failure to make money
provoked countless arguments between the two of them; fights which she had no qualms
displaying in public, humiliating Barack constantly in front of friends and strangers. At
this point, Barack bargained desperately with Michelle to allow him to run for U.S.
Representative; surely this would bring in the funds she craved. Alas, he not only badly lost
the election but plunged into debt up to his ears. Barack had truly hit bottom. And then?
Suddenly money began pouring in for him.
Garrow gives no explanation as to why, he merely describes how Barack for the first time
in his life was in charge of the allocation of millions of dollars in public funds which he
began distributing as political patronage right and left. Shortly afterwards, Barack
announced he would run for the United States Senate, a hugely expensive venture. But once
again, he mysteriously came into possession of huge sums of money which would more than pay
for that run. His fortunes had changed, he was no longer the penniless spouse Michelle had
sneered at. Alas - and this is where the sorrow enters Garrow's writing - Barack himself had
changed as well. He was no longer the idealistic community organizer of the past, no longer
the fun-loving and outgoing person he'd once been. Instead, he was a cold, withdrawn
individual who distanced himself from his old friends, abandoned his old alliances, displayed
loyalty to no one but Michelle (and Valerie Jarrett). Garrow never puts it into words but
it's clear nonetheless; Barack had sold out.
Needless to say, the Leftist establishment does NOT view Garrow's book kindly. It's bad
enough 'Rising Star' uncovers Obama's failures, it's worse that Garrow's astounding research
is so precise, so accurate it's impossible to disprove his revelations of those failures.
It's no comfort to Obama's disillusioned followers that Garrow is as upset as they. I'm
certain in my heart he would have given anything to have come up with a different conclusion
for his subject. Alas, however, Garrow is a prisoner of his phenomenal skills as a researcher
and his own honesty. The result is a brilliant sorrowful book on a man who ultimately
betrayed the hope he had promised to the world - and himself.
44, the biggest fraudulent, groomed 'president' in USA history. Imagine if legal citizens
knew the TRUTH about corruption within the political arena? Thank you, @TuckerCarlson
> He will go down as The most corrupt president in history! Spied on an opponents
campaign Authorised the intelligence agencies to spy Leaker Collided with Russia
Our Fakenews networks conspired with Obama, Obama's previous Cabinet, Hillary, the CIA,
FBI, NSA, DNC, and Democrats in Congress. They were all in on it together. #Sedition #Treason
ex-president Obummer biggest legacy to the democratic world is allowing China to claim all
of the South China Sea by turning a blind eye whilst China was dredging the sea beds and
creating artificial islands all over the South China sea!!
Obama was an America hater from day one, and committed many treasons public and private.
His "legacy" is and was a fabrication of the MSM, who tolerated no end of abuses, including
Obama suing a number of journalists.
But let's just look at one item, underplayed by the MSM: Obama did everything he could to
stop the 9/11 victims bill, including a presidential veto, which was then overridden by a
gigantic (97-1) senate vote.
McCain and Graham continued to fight the LAW, undoubtedly with Obama help, using Arab
funded lawyers to the tune of 1.2 million dollars per month.
Oh, he didn't like hearing what his "job" is. She's right. Journalists used to do
something called "investigative reporting." Now, it's all about that, "GOTCHA!" Pathetic.
🥱
"... Could Samantha Powers husband, Bloomberg media and book writer Cass Sunstein, have been looking over Samantha's shoulder when she was unmasking hundreds of names critically necessary for her job as UN Ambassador, even though she does not remember requesting any of them? ..."
"... why would Obama proceed with the dramatic expulsions of all those Russian diplomats and properties (when we now all know that Russia didn't hack the DNC and exfiltrate any e-mails) in that particular point in time and just a few weeks before the inauguration? ..."
Mr. Johnson, Thank you both for your lucid explanations of Russiagate and your tenacity. I
pray that with your help, the forces of good will triumph.
A question, are the plotters trying to hold out till the elections? It would seem that if
they succeeded in doing that they and Trump loses the election, then they will have gotten
away with this crime and established the IC as the equivalent of the Praetorian Guard.
Could Samantha Powers husband, Bloomberg media and book writer Cass Sunstein, have been
looking over Samantha's shoulder when she was unmasking hundreds of names critically
necessary for her job as UN Ambassador, even though she does not remember requesting any of
them?
Dan Bongino claims he had an epiphany and solved the non-unmasking of Flynn during that
crucial period. (Remember, he had Trump for an interview a few weeks ago, his connection to
him and his people might have helped his powers of intuition a bit).
It is a scenario that explains a lot, like for example, why would Obama proceed with the
dramatic expulsions of all those Russian diplomats and properties (when we now all know that
Russia didn't hack the DNC and exfiltrate any e-mails) in that particular point in time and
just a few weeks before the inauguration?
What does the committee think of his take (if you can ignore his theatrics)?
The attempted prosecution of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's business partners on alleged FARA crimes,
in which prosecutors are still saying the general is a foreign agent. [Foreign Agents
Registration Act, US law since 1938.] [Even though he is not a defendant in that case.]
His business partner was convicted by a jury, on this, last year.
Judge shortly thereafter said the court [that judge] failed to properly instruct the jury
– as the DOJ did not have evidence anyone was under the control of a foreign government
-- the key criteria.
The conviction was vacated by the judge; this criteria was not met, nor was evidence
produced by DOJ to show this.
This judge [Anthony Trenga] also allowed the DOJ to: appeal ruling.
That is, Trenga's ruling that vacated the conviction.
That is, let DOJ try and get a new trial -- a do-over.
Which, the DOJ, now under AG Bill Barr is currently attempting to do.
In the appeal for a new trial, Flynn is not a defendant.
His former business partners are.
The DOJ, in a motion and memorandum to the federal appeals court, ---pleading for right for
another trial --- in this motion, the DOJ also accused Flynn, in writing, of being an agent of
Turkey -- all along – "from the beginning," the DOJ motion, from January 2020 states.
Below is from 1/24/2020 DOJ filing against Messrs. Rafiekian and Alptekin, [Flynn's
then-business partners prior to 2017], docketed in federal court in January:
>>>>>[[The evidence discussed above equally shows concerted action between
Rafiekian, Flynn, and Alptekin to act subject to Turkey's direction or control. . . . From the
beginning, the co-conspirators agreed that. . . .]]<<<<<
[Note: Rafiekian, in 2006, was nominated by President Bush to Board of Directors of the
'Export–Import Bank of the United States'; this nomination was confirmed/approved by USA
Senate. He served on the bank's board from 2006 to 2011.
Attorney representing defendants, their reply, opposing DOJ appeal request -- rejecting the
January 2020 DOJ motion and claims about the men -- from April 2020, motion and memorandum
includes this:
[[Although the government's appellate brief now alleges that Flynn was a Turkish agent
"[f]rom the beginning" (Br. 2), it sang a different tune just a month before trial [last year],
when it told the district court that Flynn was not part of any conspiracy. It was only after
Flynn made it clear that he would not offer the testimony the government expected to hear that
it reversed course, announced that its erstwhile star witness was really a co-conspirator all
along. . . .]]
That is: "from the beginning," as the DOJ asserts in their January 2020 filing.
This case was dismissed last year because there was no evidence that any of them were under
the control of a foreign government, i.e., "foreign agents" -- yet the DOJ persists.
Nor was Flynn ever charged with any FARA alleged crimes, not by Mueller, not by anyone.
Flynn's case, prosecuted by Mueller/SCO -- the DOJ recently moved to end it all – yet
Judge Sullivan persists.
One case, presided by Judge Contreras, then Sullivan: should never have ever been
prosecuted. We now know this for a fact. Flynn was framed by his own government.
In the other case, that Trenga dismissed: Flynn, who is not a defendant, is accused of being
a foreign agent by the DOJ, in January 2020.
Of note: Sullivan, apparently believing that he is, threatened Flynn with 15 years in jail,
during a hearing in Dec. 2018, when the judge removed all pretense of being impartial, with his
rant about the general selling out his country, possible treason, blah blah blah. In other
words, the ghost of the long dead, still-born Logan Act, apparently.
To what issue will this come?
HAMLET My fate cries out, And makes each petty artery in this body As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve. Still am I call'd. Unhand me, gentlemen. By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me! I say, away! Go on; I'll follow thee.
[HAMLET begins following the ghost, exits]
HORATIO He waxes desperate with imagination.
MARCELLUS Let's follow; 'tis not fit thus to obey him.
HORATIO Have after. To what issue will this come?
MARCELLUS Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
HORATIO Heaven will direct it.
MARCELLUS Nay, let's follow him.
Obama's recent signaling of Flynn as Mr. Perjury, followed up soon thereafter by Sullivan's
latching onto that exact same theme is curious. I don't know if this is just one more curve
ball in this, or a fast ball right down the middle.
Recall: There is no public record of Obama, or then AG Lynch or then DAG Sally Yates doing anything to
remove Comey as FBI director or discipline him when he announced there would be no prosecution
of Clinton in 2016 – keeping in mind Comey's role was not prosecutor, [as the country's
general attorney; rather, his role was as police chief of the nation].
McCabe leaking to Wall Street Journal, late October 2016, that there was a criminal
investigation involving Clinton Foundation. There is no record Obama, Lynch, Yates, Comey did
anything to remove McCabe from duty as the FBI deputy director, or discipline him.
There are numerous examples of this lack of action in 2016 right up until Jan. 20, 2017 when
Trump was inaugurated.
This exact pattern includes, of course the Flynn/Kislyak issue.
What is factual at this point is: Washington Post had knowledge as early as [and perhaps
sooner than] Jan. 5, 2017 of Flynn phone conversation with Russian ambassador to US, Sergey
Ivanovich Kislyak, that occurred late December.
And, this stuff was actually published, in WAP, on Jan. 12, 2017.
Obama left office noontime Jan. 20, 2017.
Among other things, might a purpose of the Flynn persecution also involve, rather, just be
another curve ball -- to keep eyes away from the failure by Obama team to prosecute this
criminal leak and outing of Flynn? I don't know.
I also don't know why Trump stated the following on Dec. 2, 2017, [the day after Flynn
plead:
[[I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled
guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful.
There was nothing to hide!]]
On May 13, 2020 Trump stated: [[And when I see what is happening to him, it's disgraceful. And it was all a ruse. And, by the
way, the FBI said he didn't lie. The FBI said he did not lie. So with all the stuff I'm hearing
about lying, the FBI said he didn't lie. But the sleazebag said, "Well, we don't care what he
-- what they say. We're saying he lied." Okay? But the FBI, you remember, when they left, they
said, "He didn't lie." What they've done to that man and that family is a disgrace. But I just
tell you that because I just left General Milley, and he said, "A great man and a great
soldier." Isn't that a shame.]]
"... Sydney Powell can only appeal the conduct of the Judge. This serves as a nice distraction from the unconstitutional conduct of the Obama administration in wiretapping political opponents; as well as multiple members of Congress ..."
"... We do know Rosenstein appointed Mueller as SC to investigate Flynn, among other things. ..."
"... And we now know there was no predicate for any of the Mueller SCO appointment; thus, Rosenstein, too: what was he doing? ..."
"... We do know that at some point after Bill Barr was confirmed as AG last year, that he began to investigate outing of Flynn and release of classified information, that is, actual crimes. ..."
"... And we know Obama is an enemy of Flynn. If the CIA never took any steps, prior to the Barr confirmation as AG -- and I have no way of knowing whether they did or did not, viz. the Flynn outing and leak of classified information, ---what, if any, might or should be, if any, the consequences of that? And, ditto the DOJ. ..."
"... It appear this judge want to protect the likes of Obama, and Yates, and the long list of villains whose mission remain: Destroy Flynn at all costs. ..."
"... General Flynn's original law team belonged to Covington & Burling. That's where Eric Holder made partner. Since his time as Attorney General, Holder has returned to that law firm. Like Fred said, they sandbagged the case. ..."
"... Flynn swore before two judges under penalty of perjury that he lied to the FBI. He then swore that he didn't lie to the FBI when he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. There's the conundrum. If we had the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, we would know the answer to one of your questions. We could compare that to his guilty plea. We would then know if the prosecution's case was false. In that case both the prosecution and Flynn would be liable for perjuring themselves. It would also constitute prosecutorial misconduct IMO. Barr is doing Flynn a disservice by not releasing those transcripts. ..."
"... So all those mass incarcerated black men who pled guilty are really guilty because prosecutorial misconduct and defective legal advice neither happen to them nor are mitigating when a plea of guilty is made? "swore before two judges under penalty of perjury" The DOJ dropped the charges, it is up to the to prosecute for the new accusation that pleading guilty was actually perjury. Good luck at a jury trial with that. ..."
"... It seems to be a last minute desperation play by Sullivan to keep Obama out of the frying pan. ..."
"... Just today, the neocon-infested Washington Post ran an editorial, apparently by one of their DNC-affiliated writers, which attempted to jape the whole Obamagate narrative through a paroxysm of superlatives, mocking it as some gigantic and wholly imaginary conspiracy. This effort reminded me of their similar jocularity phase relative to Trump during the 2016 primary season. ..."
"... I suspect the reality is just the sleazy truth of Obama being just as much of a crooked bastard as Bush. The Obama gang, of course, is desperate to prevent the tarnishing of Saint Barry ..."
"... When Judge Sullivan said three days ago that he was going to make a schedule for outside persons and organizations to file written arguments, it was essentially an invitation for arguments against the government's request to dismiss the case. I started to put together an article about that brazen move. ..."
Firstly, Larry Johnson and Robert Willmann know more about this case than I do. It now
appears, if this report today is to be believed, that Emmett Sullivan is now inclined to
charge General Flynn with contempt of court and perjury. I have to ask; for what? This is
Kafkaesque.
For agreeing to a plea deal that Flynn knew was false? For failing to plead innocence? For
reversing his plea when it was demonstrated that the prosecution case against him was utterly
untrue and corrupt?
"Judge", I use the term loosely, Sullivan seems to be so ensnared in the coils of judicial
procedure that he has forgotten that truth and justice matter. That is the nicest construct I
can put on it. I think it's time for Sidney Powell to rip this judge to shreds. I await Larry
and Roberts comments.
Flynn was told by his lawyers from Covington & Burling that he was guilty. Covington
& Burling were not only wrong they made no effort to get the exculpatory evidence and
purposely withheld what evidence they did possess - repeatedly - from Flynn's new lawyer.
But then that has already been reported on publicly and discussed here. Perhaps your
memory is faulty.
Sydney Powell can only appeal the conduct of the Judge. This serves as a nice distraction
from the unconstitutional conduct of the Obama administration in wiretapping political
opponents; as well as multiple members of Congress, multiple governors and state health officials in response to China's
biological attack against the US and Western nations.
Yes, I agree with you. Sullivan trying to charge Flynn with perjury and contempt of court
is a deliberate distraction. I would have thought the people who should be charged are the
ones who constructed and prosecuted the bogus charge in the first place.
How many defendants automatically claim they are "not guilty, your honor" when asked to enter
their plea, even when there is still gunpowder on their hands?
Do they also get charged with perjury after their guilt is established, beyond a
reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers? You lied to the court - you said you were
innocent. Double time in the slammer for you.
Defendant statements of either their own guilt or innocence should be "privileged" and
therefore not actionable. Those statements are fundamental to our trust in our judicial
system, and should never later be claimed perjury or false statements if the defendant
changes their mind or a jury makes their ultimate finding.
Although different people at different times, and different circumstances: a
comparison.
Then CIA Agent Valerie Plame outing [she is currently a Democrat candidate for a New
Mexico congressional seat].
And, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn [NSA-designee] outing.
Outing, that is: leaking their identities, by government officials[s], to . . . .and
release of classified information.
How do the actions taken by government compare and contrast, at the time of outing/leaking
crimes.
1] Both leaks went to the Washington Post.
2] Substance of the Plame and Flynn leaks related to . . .
WAP published Plame's identity, July 14, 2003. George Bush the younger, then president.
Robert David Sanders "Bob" Novak put his name to this at WAP. [Her husband, Joseph C. Wilson
4th, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, disputed
Bush/Cheney administration claims, their claims of WMD in Iraq.]
WAP published Flynn's identify, Jan. 12, 2017. Barack Obama, then president. David
Reynolds Ignatius put his name to it at WAP. Flynn disputed Obama administration "facts"
about their Syrian war in particular, and more generally, in west Asia/near East/middle
east.]
3] Investigation at the time or no investigation at the time.
Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981 requires actions on such matters.
In the Plame matter, the CIA, on July 24, 2003 made a phone call to the DOJ about this,
according to the CIA. They followed this up with a July 30, 2003 letter.
Government records show "on 24 July 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the
Chief of the Counterespionage Section of DoJ noting concerns with recent articles on this
subject and stating that the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of
a review of the articles by subject matter experts. By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA
reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The letter also informed DoJ that the
CIA's Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter. This letter was sent
again to DoJ by facsimile on 5 September 2003."
Sept. 30, 2003, Bush famously stated, viz. the identities of the leaker[s]: "I want to
know who it is ... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Dec. 30, 2003 a Special Counsel was also appointed to investigate the Plame matter, as
well.
Then AG John Ashcroft recused himself and thus declined to make this SC appointment.
Patrick Fitzgerald was named the Special Counsel by then Deputy AG James Comey. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We know many more details now about the Plame matter, than about what, if any,
investigation may, or may not have, begun, at the time of the Flynn outing and release of
classified information.
What we do know, so far, about the Flynn matter is that, at the time, there was no attempt
-- or at least, we don't know if there was -- any attempt from the Flynn outing on Jan. 12,
2017, to Jan. 20 of that year, when Obama was still president: a] if the CIA asked for an investigation b] if then AG Lynch did c] if DAG at the time Yates did d] if Obama did
We also don't know if, beginning Jan. 20 a] if then acting AG Yates did b] if President Trump did c] if the CIA did
Once Jeff Sessions was confirmed as AG, we don't know if he did, nor do we know if DAG Rod
Rosenstein did.
Nor do we know if the CIA did.
We do know Rosenstein appointed Mueller as SC to investigate Flynn, among other
things.
And we now know there was no predicate for any of the Mueller SCO appointment; thus,
Rosenstein, too: what was he doing?
We do know that at some point after Bill Barr was confirmed as AG last year, that he began
to investigate outing of Flynn and release of classified information, that is, actual
crimes.
It is a fair question to ask when he actually began investigation on the Flynn outing, and
leaking of classified material related to that.
And to ask when, or if, the CIA, since Jan. 20, 2017, ever did.
We do know there were many public enemies of Flynn at highest levels of DOJ, FBI, CIA, and
the office Clapper was in charge of at the time, Director of National Intelligence.
And we know Obama is an enemy of Flynn. If the CIA never took any steps, prior to the Barr confirmation as AG -- and I have no way
of knowing whether they did or did not, viz. the Flynn outing and leak of classified
information, ---what, if any, might or should be, if any, the consequences of that? And, ditto the DOJ.
As an aside: Judge Emmett Sullivan's ongoing tomfoolery and slapdash in the Flynn criminal
case puts in relief, sharp relief, just how upside down this entire issue has become.
It appear this judge want to protect the likes of Obama, and Yates, and the long list of
villains whose mission remain: Destroy Flynn at all costs.
Flynn's guilty plea being sworn to under penalty of perjury is no small matter, and the
DOJs actions have been, in total, extremely odd.
It may be unwise to read too much into this at this point. The DOJ has wasted a couple of
years and no doubt millions of dollars worth of the court's time. Sullivan is providing a
platform wherein the DOJ will have to fully explain itself in this matter. Both past and
present DOJs, that is.
As a general observation, there has been a tidal wave of criticism in American media over
the DOJ dropping the charges against Flynn.
I have made an attempt to follow what the American MSM are saying about this, and the
hostility to both Flynn and Barr is just overwhelming. Surely that overwhelming media opinion had an effect on Judge Sullivan's bad
decision.
Perhaps I'm missing something. I know the FBI can listen in on phone calls made to foreign
nationals, but how can the FBI legally listen in on phone calls made by the NSC Director of
the President-Elect, regardless of who he is talking to?
General Flynn's original law team belonged to Covington & Burling. That's where Eric
Holder made partner. Since his time as Attorney General, Holder has returned to that law
firm. Like Fred said, they sandbagged the case.
My husband's default TV channel is MSNBC, programming which I often overhear. A fair-minded
observer can't help but notice that Obama apologists only mention that Flynn plead guilty
twice. They NEVER emphasize the beyond-mitigating aspects of the matter, e.g., that his
counsel at the time (which was a law firm also employing former Obama AG Eric Holder) was
either incompetent or purposefully negligent in advising him to do so. Nor do they mention
that Flynn was threatened with the prospect of his son being prosecuted using rarely-enforced
FARA laws. The apologists also fail to remind their audiences that the FBI investigation of
Flynn was about to be closed -- much less do they report that he was NEVER charged with
perjury in the first place!
The convenient and expedient failure to fully inform people has become typical among the
MSM/Democrats/NeverTrumpers, et al. Their efforts to misinform, to perpetuate ignorance,
continue to play out not only in the entire Obamagate scandal but it seems also when it comes
to COVID-19 policy. No wonder zombie-themed entertainment is so popular in recent years.
SMFH...
Flynn wasn't outed. He was a widely known public figure for years. Trump and Pence
announced Flynn lied to them and the FBI when he was fired. I'm not if this was mentioned in
the press before Trump's announcement.
Flynn swore before two judges under penalty of perjury that he lied to the FBI. He then
swore that he didn't lie to the FBI when he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. There's the
conundrum. If we had the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, we would know the
answer to one of your questions. We could compare that to his guilty plea. We would then know
if the prosecution's case was false. In that case both the prosecution and Flynn would be
liable for perjuring themselves. It would also constitute prosecutorial misconduct IMO. Barr
is doing Flynn a disservice by not releasing those transcripts.
TTG, there is this legal thing called the litigation privilege that, I think, covers what an
accused can say in a trial. Plenty of people plead guilty to charges that they know to be
false without the slightest demur by anyone..
Furthermore, Flynn may have become convinced by his lawyers that he had, in effect lied to
the FBI. In addition, since he was not under oath or cautioned by the FBI at the time, even
if he deliberately did lie for perhaps political or strategic reasons how is that a crime?
People lie to people all the time.
To put that another way, is telling a female FBI agent "I'll still respect you in the
morning" going to get you 20 years?
So all those mass incarcerated black men who pled guilty are really guilty because
prosecutorial misconduct and defective legal advice neither happen to them nor are
mitigating when a plea of guilty is made? "swore before two judges under penalty of perjury"
The DOJ dropped the charges, it is up to the to prosecute for the new accusation that
pleading guilty was actually perjury. Good luck at a jury trial with that.
Mark,
"Sullivan is providing a platform wherein the DOJ will have to fully explain itself in
this matter."
So he is willfully refusing to dismiss the case so the DOJ can give him an explanation -
other than the one they already gave him in the motion to dismiss? Justice Sullivan, on
behalf of the Judiciary, is now taking it upon itself to determine what the executive branch
of government was thinking in this case? To get that explanation he has appointed a former
member of the judiciary, one who had previously worked side by side with Andrew Weissman. No
bias there. You don't need to be a lawyer to see how ludicrous the suggestion and the judges
actions appear.
Sullivan, like most of the Federal judiciary, is just another swamp creature. He apparently slept through the class in law school where they said that the state has to
prosecute the case, a judge can't - even as much as he may want to.
The issue is both: the criminal leak of classified information; and the criminal outing --
the identity of Flynn -- related to classified information leak. Those are indissolubly
linked.
The issue is also this, thanks to Judge Emmett Gilbert & Sullivan, who wrote May 13,
2020:
"ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show
Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. . . and any other
applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law."
Who would be charging Flynn with "criminal contempt for perjury"? And/Or, "and any other
applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law"?
Perhaps Gilbert & Sullivan will keep the case open until after the November
presidential election, or the November 2024 election, or the next one, so that another DOJ --
not headed by Bill Barr -- can so charge Flynn.
Or perhaps Gilbert & Sullivan is inviting Congress to name a Special Prosecutor.
Who might that be? James Comey? Andrew Weissmann? Sally Yates?
After all, how dare anyone expose Barry as anything but "the scandal free" administration.
This is Gilbert & Sullivan's motive, as I see it, my opinion, based on what I have seen
so far: To protect Barry, among others. And do that via keeping alive a prosecution of Flynn,
based on DOJ/FBI/CIA skullduggery. [Another theory is the judge wants to throw the book at
Covington for misconduct; perhaps both or one or the other are at play, I don't have the
evidence at this time to clearly say.]
As for Trump and Pence, that is grist for another mill.
For all we know, Trump and Pence may have wanted Flynn gone and they did not care how it
was done. And they did not want their finger prints on it; and for all we know, Trump and
Pence were not opposed to the Mueller SC appointment.
These are also things we actually just don't have clear answers to, just yet.
But that sideshow is irrelevant to this legal proceeding/circus per the May 13 order.
However, it may [or may not] be relevant to whether or not Trump and Pence actually wanted
Flynn gone – using the "Flynn lied" as an excuse to be rid of him.
Pence, at the time, had no business speaking about what was essentially classified
information, at the time, by the way; he did, on national TV, and Flynn was the patsy.
Did Trump and Pence, and their administration, sit on their hands as well, and do nothing
about the criminal leak of classified information linked to the outing of Flynn?
Claiming he lied could suggest they also were not interested in the crime of leaking
classified information and his outing.
At least Bush said or claimed to wanted to get to the bottom of the Plame matter. Did
Trump and Pence, at the time?
And if they did want to get to the bottom of it, I would like to see evidence that they
did so, and/or evidence that they were thwarted in doing so.
Surely, Trump and Pence can argue this was why they were not opposed to Mueller
appointment.
We don't know all the contents of the scope memo Rosenstein wrote, as the boss of Mueller,
-- whether or not investigation of the criminal leak and outing of Flynn was or was not part
of Mueller's scope of work.
We don't know because chunks of scope memo are still redacted and not available to the
public.
Presumably, AG Barr is investigation this; he came back on the scene last year.
What happened before him, going back to Jan. 20, 2017? And, what happened from Jan. 12 to
Jan. 2020, with respect to the Obama administration, on this crime?
Did anyone, prior to Barr, do anything, or try to do anything?
If this was not part of Rosenstein's scope memo to Mueller, what can one conclude? -30-
In recent years we have seen numerous individuals released from jail due to their innocence
being found by DNA and other scientific processes. A good number of those individuals had
plead guilty. In the Sullivan courtroom Flynn plead quietly twice (once to Sullivan the other
to Contreras) but now pleads innocent and the government has decided to drop the case. But
Judge Sullivan now questions what to do with Flynn and is asking for help from the legal
community to determine what to do. It has become a circus or Sullivan wants his pound of
flesh. Time will tell but if it is not to the benefit of Flynn then it's off to the Appeals
Court where it will be justly determined. After insinuating that Flynn was a traitor this Judge should drop the case quickly but no he
wants make himself like a bigger Idiot.
Flynn's case never went to trial. It went straight to a guilty plea and was awaiting the
sentencing phase. If the DOJ dropped charges before this guilty plea or at any time during a
trial, I doubt we would be in this mess. What Flynn signed onto is straightforward. I don't
know if this litigation privilege would apply to this Defendant's Acceptance.
"The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a
factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the
facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and
because I am, in fact, guilty o f the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I
under the influence o f anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement o
f the Offense fully." "I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and
stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is
true and correct."
Sullivan is addressing the guilty plea by Flynn and his subsequent withdrawal of that plea.
creating the charge of perjury to the court.
Barr is opening up the DOJ to prosecutorial misconduct if the reason for the withdrawal is
exculpatory information that was not provided defendant prior to his guilty plea.
Sullivan is exploiting this discrepancy. I am neither a legal expert nor lawyer so will
stand corrected.
It seems to be a last minute desperation play by Sullivan to keep Obama out of the frying
pan.
Just today, the neocon-infested Washington Post ran an editorial, apparently by one of
their DNC-affiliated writers, which attempted to jape the whole Obamagate narrative through a
paroxysm of superlatives, mocking it as some gigantic and wholly imaginary conspiracy. This
effort reminded me of their similar jocularity phase relative to Trump during the 2016
primary season.
I suspect the reality is just the sleazy truth of Obama being just as much of a crooked
bastard as Bush. The Obama gang, of course, is desperate to prevent the tarnishing of Saint
Barry.
If Flynn does get off in the end, might he sue Obama and at some point depose him? An
interesting thought experiment.
I find this hilarious. It is like POTUS is a helpless bystander. Does he not realize it is
his DOJ that has "stolen or destroyed" the 302? Does he not know that he can declassify all
of "Obamagate"?
Or is his intent to just troll everyone?
And what about him throwing Flynn to the hyenas by firing him?
When Judge Sullivan said three days ago that he was going to make a schedule for outside
persons and organizations to file written arguments, it was essentially an invitation for
arguments against the government's request to dismiss the case. I started to put together an
article about that brazen move.
Now Sullivan has abandoned that move and has exposed himself as an advocate singularly
against the defendant Flynn, which of course is not his role. His order of Wednesday, 13 May,
appointed John Gleeson, a former federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, to
present arguments against the motion to dismiss Flynn's case and whether Flynn should be the
subject of a proceeding for criminal contempt of court for perjury.
Judge Sullivan's new order indicates that he has improperly invested his ego in the case,
and that something is likely going on behind the curtain.
With all that is emerging from the recent releases of sworn testimony from various
actors surrounding the Flynn case, and the Russiagate hoohaw exposing the motivations of
these individuals, can it be doubted that given the depth of the duplicity on exhibit here
that it is entirely possible (indeed, likely) that something as incriminating as the
"missing" 302 was destroyed to cover the tracks?
Although some of the principals left of their own volition, and others were removed
through being fired, it is clear that others acted as "stay behind" forces of the Deep State
to continue the coup from inside the DOJ, FBI, and IC. Under these circumstances, it is not
at all clear that President Trump was (and is now) substantially in command of these
agencies. Incriminating documents and recordings may well have been preemptively destroyed on
the sayso of the "stay behind" plotters still in high positions, so calls for
declassification of already disappeared evidence would be futile.
No, it doesn't look good that Flynn was fired, but at the time, and with what was known
at that time , and given Flynn's plea, what could be expected? Now that things have
subsequently been revealed, it looks like a bad call; hindsight is, as the saying has it,
20/20.
"... According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants, the FBI decided all by itself after Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians the president of the US that they supposedly wanted. ..."
"... Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's Justice Department sought FISA Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and members of his campaign for president. ..."
"... IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of the Deep State were doing with the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling of the FBI and DoJ the coup is ongoing ..."
The president of the US was made head of the Executive Branch (EC) of the federal government by Article 2 of the present constitution
of the US. He is also Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the federal government. As head of the EC, he is head of all the
parts of the government excepting the Congress and the Federal courts which are co-equal branches of the federal government. The
Department of Justice is just another Executive Branch Department subordinate in all things to the president. The FBI is a federal
police force and counter-intelligence agency subordinate to the Department of Justice and DNI and therefore to the president in
all things. The FBI actually IMO has no legal right whatever to investigate the president. He is the constitutionally elected
commander of the FBI. Does one investigate one's commander? No. The procedures for legally and constitutionally removing a president
from office for malfeasance are clear. He must be impeached by the House of Representatives for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
and then tried by the US Senate on the charges. Conviction results in removal from office.
According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants, the FBI decided all by itself after
Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians
the president of the US that they supposedly wanted. Part of the discussions among senior FBI people had to do with whether
or not the president had the legal authority to remove from office an FBI Director. Say what? Where have these dummies been all
their careers? Do they not teach anything about this at the FBI Academy? The US Army lectures its officers at every level of schooling
on the subject of the constitutional and legal basis and limits of their authority.
Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's Justice Department sought FISA
Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and members of his campaign for president. Their application
for warrants were largely based on unsubstantiated "opposition research" funded by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
The judge who approved the warrants was not informed of the nature of the evidence. These warrants provided an authority for surveillance
of the Trump campaign.
IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of the Deep State were doing with
the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling
of the FBI and DoJ the coup is ongoing. pl
"... The majority of U.S. media will most likely try and find appropriate excuses so they can minimize Obama's role in these scandals. It is completely clear that the battle over who will be in the White House in the next four years is now taking focus on the Obama era as of opposed to Trump's mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 80,000 Americans and infected more than 1.3 million people. ..."
"... With endless tweets by Donald Trump dedicated to Obama over the past few days, it is as if the presidential battle in November will be fought between him and Obama, and not Democrat сandidate Joe Biden . ..."
"... It is likely Obama is becoming more public as Trump's opponent Biden is proving inadequate and incapable of defeating Trump ..."
"... Trump also retweeted statements from CIA agent Buck Sexton, in which he accused Obama of sabotaging the Trump administration in the first days of his term. Sexton also called former FBI Director Andrew McCabe "a dishonorable partisan scumbag who has done incalculable damage to the reputation of the FBI and should be sitting in a cell for lying under oath" ..."
"... As for the affair with the secret operation of selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, journalists of Forbes in 2011 wondered whether that operation would become Obama's "Watergate," ..."
Source: InfoBricsFormer
U.S. President Barack Obama is coming under increasing pressure, led by what President Donald
Trump is calling "Obamagate." This comes as Mexico has requested to finally clarify the affair
with the secret sale of American weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico is asking for the case
to be clarified after almost ten years.
In this secret operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, weapons from the U.S. were sold to Mexican drug cartels. The U.S. claimed that
about 2,000 automatic weapons were sold to Mexicans so that the Barack Obama administration
could follow their path to the drug cartels. Instead, these weapons were used in massacres.
Mexican authorities are now seeking answers from the United States.
In addition to selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, Obama is responsible for a lot of
global upheaval on the world stage – primarily the so-called "Arab Spring" that should be
more accurately described as the "Arab Winter" as it brought death and destruction across the
Arab world.
The sale of these weapons to Mexican drug cartels is another ugly legacy of Obama's rule
that liberals like to view as one of the best periods of American history. Let's not forget
that in 2009 Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for his apparent "extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people."
The majority of U.S. media will most likely try and find appropriate excuses so they can
minimize Obama's role in these scandals. It is completely clear that the battle over who will
be in the White House in the next four years is now taking focus on the Obama era as of opposed
to Trump's mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 80,000
Americans and infected more than 1.3 million people.
With endless tweets by Donald Trump dedicated to Obama over the past few days, it is as if
the presidential battle in November will be fought between him and Obama, and not Democrat
сandidate Joe Biden .
The reason for Trump's many tweets against the former president was because of Obama's
private conversation that was leaked to the public in which he criticized the suspension of the
investigation against Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn , while he called
Trump's fight against the coronavirus epidemic a "chaotic disaster."
The American president started tweeting on the morning of May 10 and stopped late in the
evening, making over a hundred tweets against Obama. This exchange between Obama and Trump is
not common in American politics as former presidents usually do not interfere in the politics
of their successors. However, there are suggestions that Obama still has connections to the
deep state and is actively undermining Trump.
Obama, who openly admitted he would remain active in politics and wished he could contend
for a third term, could be exerting influence through Hillary Clinton and Biden. It is likely
Obama is becoming more public as Trump's opponent Biden is proving inadequate and incapable of
defeating Trump.
The battle between Obama and Trump started with the announcement that the Ministry of
Justice is terminating the investigation against former Trump's national security adviser
Michael Flynn. Flynn, who was probably the shortest-serving national security adviser in
history, was sacked at the beginning of his term on charges of lying to Vice President Mike
Pence about talks with the Russian ambassador to Washington. His removal triggered a chain of
failed investigations and campaigns against Trump and his alleged links to Russian interference
during the U.S. presidential election, which also ended in a failed impeachment.
In private conversations that leaked to the public, Obama described Flynn's acquittal as a
threat to the rule of law.
Trump also retweeted statements from CIA agent Buck Sexton, in which he accused Obama of
sabotaging the Trump administration in the first days of his term. Sexton also called former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe "a dishonorable partisan scumbag who has done incalculable damage to
the reputation of the FBI and should be sitting in a cell for lying under oath"
Trump then continued with accusations on Twitter and said that Obama
committed "the biggest political crime in American history, by far!" and ended briefly with
"Obamagate."
As for the affair with the secret operation of selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels,
journalists of Forbes in 2011 wondered whether that operation would become Obama's "Watergate,"
and it appears that it very well could be. Obama's attempts to smear Trump has not only
backfired, but it could have very serious legal ramifications against him and others in his
administration.
The reason why the U.S. Government must be prosecuted for its war-crimes
against Iraq is that they are so horrific and there are so many of them, and international law
crumbles until they become prosecuted and severely punished for what they did. We therefore now
have internationally a lawless world (or "World Order") in which "Might makes right," and in
which there is really no effective international law, at all. This is merely gangster "law,"
ruling on an international level. It is what Hitler and his Axis of fascist imperialists had
imposed upon the world until the Allies -- U.S. under FDR, UK under Churchill, and U.S.S.R.
under Stalin -- defeated it, and established the United Nations. Furthermore, America's leaders deceived the American public into
perpetrating this invasion and occupation, of a foreign country (Iraq) that had never
threatened the United States; and, so, this invasion and subsequent military occupation
constitutes the very epitome of "aggressive war" -- unwarranted and illegal international
aggression. (Hitler, similarly to George W. Bush, would never have been able to obtain the
support of his people to invade if he had not lied, or "deceived," them, into invading and
militarily occupying foreign countries that had never threatened Germany, such as Belgium,
Poland and Czechoslovakia. This -- Hitler's lie-based aggressions -- was the core
of what the Nazis were hung for, and yet America now does it.)
Invoking the precedent set by the United States and its allies at the Nuremberg trial
in 1946, there can be no doubt that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of
aggression. There was no imminent threat to U.S. security nor to the security of the world.
The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution
#1441.
The Nuremberg precedent calls for no less than the arrest and prosecution of those
individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq, beginning with President George W. Bush,
Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State
Condoleez[z]a Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
Take, for example, Condoleezza Rice, who famously warned
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." (That warning was one of the most
effective lies in order to deceive the
American public into invading Iraq, because President Bush had had no real evidence, at all,
that there still remained any WMD in Iraq after the U.N. had destroyed them all, and left Iraq
in 1998 -- and he knew this; he was informed of this; he knew that he had no real evidence,
at all: he offered none; it was all mere
lies .)
So, the Nuremberg precedent definitely does apply against George W, Bush and his
partners-in-crime, just as it did against Hitler and his henchmen and allies.
The seriousness of this international war crime is not as severe as those of the Nazis were,
but nonetheless is comparable to it .
On 15 March 2018, Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies headlined at Alternet "The Staggering Death Toll in Iraq" and wrote that
"our calculations, using the best information available, show a catastrophic estimate of 2.4
million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion," and linked to solid evidence, backing up their
estimate.
On 29 September 2015, I headlined "GALLUP: 'Iraqis Are the Saddest & One of the Angriest
Populations in the World'," and linked to Gallup's survey of 1,000 individuals in each of
148 countries around the world, which found that Iraq had the highest "Negative Experience
Score." That score includes "sadness," "physical pain," "anger," and other types of misery --
and Iraq, after America's invasion, has scored the highest in the entire world, on it, and in
the following years has likewise scored at or near the highest on "Negative Experience Score."
For example: in the latest, the 2019, Gallup "Global
Emotions Report" , Iraq scores fourth from the top on "Negative Experience Score," after
(in order from the worst) Chad, Niger, and Sierra Leone. (Gallup has been doing these surveys
ever since 2005, but the first one that was published under that title was the 2015 report,
which summarized the 2014 surveys' findings.) Of course, prior to America's invasion, there had
been America's 1990 war against Iraq and the U.S. regime's leadership and imposition of U.N.
sanctions (which likewise were based largely on U.S.-regime-backed lies , though not totally on lies like
the 2003 invasion was), which caused massive misery in that country; and, therefore, not all of
the misery in Iraq which showed up in the 2015 Global Emotions Report was due to only
the 2003 invasion and subsequent military occupation of that country. But almost all of
it was, and is. And all of it was based on America's rulers lying to the public in order to win
the public's acceptance of their evil plans and invasions against a country that had never
posed any threat whatsoever to Americans -- people residing in America . Furthermore, it is
also perhaps relevant that the 2012
"World Happiness Report" shows Iraq at the very bottom of the list of countries (on page 55
of that report) regarding "Average Net Affect by Country," meaning that Iraqis were the most
zombified of all 156 nationalities surveyed. Other traumatized countries were immediately above
Iraq on that list. On "Average Negative Affect," only "Palestinian Territories" scored higher
than Iraq (page 52). After America's invasion based entirely on lies, Iraq is a wrecked
country, which still remains under the U.S. regime's boot, as the following will document:
Bush's successors, Obama and Trump, failed to press for Bush's trial on these vast crimes,
even though the American people had ourselves become enormously victimized by them, though far
less so than Iraqis were. Instead, Bush's successors have become accessories after the fact, by
this failure to press for prosecution of him and his henchmen regarding this grave matter. In
fact, the "Defense One" site bannered on 26 September 2018, "US Official: We May Cut Support for Iraq If New Government Seats
Pro-Iran Politicians" , and opened with "The Trump administration may decrease U.S.
military support or other assistance to Iraq if its new government puts Iranian-aligned
politicians in any 'significant positions of responsibility,' a senior administration official
told reporters late last week." The way that the U.S. regime has brought 'democracy' to Iraq is
by threatening to withdraw its protection of the stooge-rulers that it had helped to place into
power there, unless those stooges do the U.S. dictators' bidding, against Iraq's neighbor Iran.
This specific American dictator, Trump, is demanding that majority-Shiite Iraq be run by
stooges who favor, instead, America's fundamentalist-Sunni allies, such as the Saud family who
own Saudi Arabia and who hate and loathe Shiites and Iran. The U.S. dictatorship insists
that Iraq, which the U.S. conquered, serve America's anti-Shiite and anti-Iranian
policy-objectives. "The U.S. threat, to withhold aid if Iran-aligned politicians occupy any
ministerial position, is an escalation of Washington's demands on Baghdad." The article went on
to quote a "senior administration official" as asserting that, "if Iran exerts a tremendous
amount of influence, or a significant amount of influence over the Iraqi government, it's going
to be difficult for us to continue to invest." Get the euphemisms there! This article said that
"the Trump administration has made constraining Iran's influence in the region a cornerstone of
their foreign policy." So, this hostility toward Iran must be reflected in Iraq's policies,
too. It's not enough that Trump wants to destroy Iran like Bush has destroyed Iraq; Trump
demands that Iraq participate in that crime, against Iraq's own neighbor. This article said
that, "There have also been protests against 'U.S. meddling' in the formation of a new Iraqi
government, singling out Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk for working to prevent parties
close to Iran from obtaining power." McGurk is the rabidly neconservative
former high G.W. Bush Administration official, and higher Obama Administration official, who
remained as Trump's top official on his policy to force Iraq to cooperate with America's
efforts to conquer Iran. Trump's evil is Obama's evil, and is Bush's evil. It is bipartisan
evil, no matter which Party is in power. Though Trump doesn't like either the Bushes or Obamas,
all of them are in the same evil policy-boat. America's Deep State
remains the same, no matter whom it places into the position of nominal power. The regime
remains the same, regardless.
On April 29th, the whistleblowing former UK Ambassador Craig Murray wrote :
Nobody knows how many people died as a result of the UK/US Coalition of Death led
destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and, by proxy, Syria and Yemen. Nobody even knows how
many people western forces themselves killed directly. That is a huge number, but still under
10% of the total. To add to that you have to add those who died in subsequent conflict
engendered by the forced dismantling of the state the West disapproved of. Some were killed
by western proxies, some by anti-western forces, and some just by those reverting to ancient
tribal hostility and battle for resources into which the country had been regressed by
bombing.
You then have to add all those who died directly as a result of the destruction of
national infrastructure. Iraq lost in the destruction 60% of its potable drinking water, 75%
of its medical facilities and 80% of its electricity. This caused millions of deaths, as did
displacement. We are only of course talking about deaths, not maiming.
UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair should hang with the U.S. gang, but who is calling for this?
How much longer will the necessary prosecutions wait? Till after these international
war-criminals have all gone honored to their graves?
Although the International Criminal Court considered and dismissed possible criminal charges
against Tony Blair's UK Government regarding the invasion and military occupation of Iraq, the
actual crime, of invading and militarily occupying a country which had posed no threat to the
national security of the invader, was ignored, and the
conclusion was that "the situation did not appear to meet the required threshold of the
Statute" (which was only
"Willful killing or inhuman treatment of civilians" and which ignored the real
crime, which was "aggressive war" or "the crime of
aggression" -- the crime for which Nazis had been hanged at Nuremberg). Furthermore, no charges
whatsoever against the U.S. Government (the world's most frequent and most heinous violator of
international law) were considered. In other words: the International Criminal Court is
subordinate to, instead of applicable to, the U.S. regime. Just like Adolf Hitler had
repeatedly made clear that, to him, all nations except Germany were dispensable and only
Germany wasn't, Barack Obama repeatedly said that "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation" ,
which likewise means that every other nation is "dispensable." The criminal
International Criminal Court accepts this, and yet expects to be respected.
The U.S. regime did "regime change" to Iraq in 2003, and to
Ukraine in 2014 , and tried to do it to Syria since 2009 , and to Yemen since 2015, and to Venezuela since
2012, and to Iran since 2017 -- just to
mention some of the examples. And, though the Nuremberg precedent certainly applies,
it's not enforced. In principle, then, Hitler has posthumously won WW II.
Hitler must be smiling, now. FDR must be rolling in his grave.
The only way to address this problem, if there won't be prosecutions against the 'duly
elected' (Deep-State-approved and enabled) national leaders and appointees, would be
governmental seizure and nationalization of the assets that are outright owned or else
controlled by America's Deep State. Ultimately, the Government-officials who are s'elected' and
appointed to run the American Government have been and are representing not the American people
but instead represent the billionaires who
fund those officials' and former officials' careers . In a democracy, those individuals --
the financial enablers of those politicians' s'electoral' success -- would be dispossessed of
all their assets, and then prosecuted for the crimes that were perpetrated by the public
officials whom they had participated in (significantly funded and propagandized for) placing
into power. (For example, both
Parties' Presidential nominees are unqualified to serve in any public office in a
democracy.)
Democracy cannot function with a
systematically lied-to public . Nor can it function if the responsible governmental
officials are effectively immune from prosecution for their 'legal' crimes, or if the financial
string-pullers behind the scenes can safely pull those strings. In America right now,
both of those conditions
pertain, and, as a result, democracy is impossible . There are only two ways to address
this problem, and one of them would start by prosecuting George W. Bush.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even
Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S
VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .
"Wasn't completely honest"... mistress of understatements. She lied. The left's narrative
is imploding. Corrupt Ambassador, and the left whined when she was fired. Belongs in
prison... in Ukraine.
During the impeachment sham hearing, Yovanovitch said she had not recall anything about
the well known national scandal Burisma in Ukraine. Surprising, isn't it?
The entire Obama Administration was, for eight long years, a string of crimes and
cover-ups by the then President and all his partners in wrongdoings. When is Lady Justice
going to prevail?
"... It is not conspiracy-mongering to note that the investigation into Trump was predicated on an opposition-research document filled with fabulism and, most likely, Russian disinformation. We know the DOJ withheld contradictory evidence when it began spying on those in Trump's orbit. We have proof that many of the relevant FISA-warrant applications -- almost every one of them, actually -- were based on "fabricated" evidence or riddled with errors. We know that members of the Obama administration, who had no genuine role in counterintelligence operations, repeatedly unmasked Trump's allies. And we now know that, despite a dearth of evidence, the FBI railroaded Michael Flynn into a guilty plea so it could keep the investigation going. ..."
"... By 2016, the Obama administration's intelligence community had normalized domestic spying. Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, famously lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress. His CIA director, John Brennan, oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on the Senate , with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer files. His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy on a Fox News journalist , shopping his case to three judges until he found one who let him name the reporter as a co-conspirator. The Obama administration also spied on Associated Press reporters , which the news organization called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." And though it's been long forgotten, Obama officials were caught monitoring the conversations of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal. ..."
"... In her very last hour in office, national-security adviser Susan Rice wrote a self-preserving email to herself , noting that she'd attended a meeting with the president, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI director James Comey, and Vice President Joe Biden in which Obama stressed that everything in the investigation should proceed "by the book." ..."
"... Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, he's running as the heir to Obama's legacy, and he was at that meeting with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before being forced to correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in Rice's email. It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation. ..."
"... s the FBI agents involved in the case noted, they wanted to have an " insurance policy " if the unthinkable happened. ..."
"... In 2016, the unthinkable did happen, and we're still dealing with the fallout four years later. We don't know where this scandal will end up, but one doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder. ..."
Those sharing #Obamagate hashtags on Twitter would do best to avoid the hysterics we saw
from Russian-collusion believers, but they have no reason to ignore the mounting evidence that
suggests the Obama administration engaged in serious corruption.
Democrats and their allies, who like to pretend that President Obama's only scandalous act
was wearing a tan suit, are going spend the next few months gaslighting the public by focusing on
the most feverish accusations against Obama. But the fact is that we already have more
compelling evidence that the Obama administration engaged in misconduct than we ever did for
opening the Russian-collusion investigation.
It is not conspiracy-mongering to note that the investigation into Trump was predicated on
an opposition-research document filled with fabulism and, most likely, Russian disinformation.
We know the DOJ withheld contradictory evidence when it began spying on those in Trump's orbit.
We have proof that many of the relevant FISA-warrant applications -- almost every one of them,
actually -- were based on "fabricated" evidence or riddled with errors. We know that members of
the Obama administration, who had no genuine role in counterintelligence operations, repeatedly
unmasked Trump's allies. And we now know that, despite a dearth of evidence, the FBI
railroaded Michael Flynn into a guilty plea so it could keep the investigation going.
What's more, the larger context only makes all of these facts more damning . By 2016, the
Obama administration's intelligence community had normalized domestic spying. Obama's director
of national intelligence, James Clapper, famously
lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress. His CIA director, John Brennan,
oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on
the Senate , with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer
files. His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy
on a Fox News journalist , shopping his case to three judges until he found one who let him
name the reporter as a co-conspirator. The Obama administration also
spied on Associated Press reporters , which the news organization
called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." And though it's been long forgotten, Obama
officials were caught monitoring
the conversations of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal.
What makes anyone believe these people wouldn't create a pretext to spy on the opposition
party?
If anyone does, they shouldn't, because on top of everything else, we know that Barack Obama
was keenly interested in the Russian-collusion investigation's progress.
In her very last hour in office, national-security adviser Susan Rice
wrote a self-preserving email to herself , noting that she'd attended a meeting with the
president, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI director James Comey, and Vice President
Joe Biden in which Obama stressed that everything in the investigation should proceed "by the
book."
Did high-ranking Obama-administration officials not always conduct such investigations "by
the book"? It is curious that they would need to be specifically instructed to do so. It is
also curious that the outgoing national-security adviser, 15 minutes after Trump had been sworn
in as president, would need to mention this meeting.
None of this means that Obama committed some specific crime; he almost assuredly did not. In
a healthy media environment, though, the mounting evidence of wrongdoing would spark an
outpouring of journalistic curiosity.
"But," you might ask, "why does it matter, anymore?"
Well, for one thing, many of the same characters central to all this apparent malfeasance
now want to retake power in Washington . Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive
presidential nominee, he's running as the heir to Obama's legacy, and he was at that meeting
with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before
being forced to
correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in
Rice's email. It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation.
Skeptics like to point out that the Obama administration had no motive to engage in abuse, because Democrats were sure they
were going to win. Richard Nixon won 49 states in 1972. His cronies had no need to break into the DNC's offices and touch off
Watergate. But as the FBI agents involved in the case noted, they wanted to have an "
insurance policy " if the unthinkable happened.
In 2016, the unthinkable did happen, and we're still dealing with the fallout four years
later. We don't know where this scandal will end up, but one doesn't have to be a conspiracy
theorist to wonder.
Schiff probably practice his lies in his mirror every morning so he can convince himself
of Russian interference. Biggest liar in America Adam Schifty schiff. Needs to be arrested
immediately for treason and lying under oath. But as usual nothing will happen. These people
are above the law. And are untouchable. Its enough to frustrate the hell out of normal sain
Americans. 4 more years of Donald Trump
Folks need to take a much closer look at your own state legislature, district attorney,
prosecutors, public defenders, social workers... especially your own town councils and school
boards. They're stealing your lives and children at the Grassroots local level.
Adam Schiff is not resigning. He's doubling down yet again! If you "want" him to resign,
you need to understand he's staying in office until voted out. There's no willpower in the
house to take action against him.
Did Barry want to drop a load of doo doo on Trump at the 11th hour, when he kicked out the
Russians and dropped the sanctions on them for their "proven election interference"?
That was my immediate feeling at the time - kind of a wag the dog in reverse - go ahead
Trump, get out of this one. Bye. I'm outta here. You take the Russian phone calls now.
According to the Conservative TreeHouse link, sounds like Barry was in a snit because the
Russians did not "over-react" the way Barry planned, so Trump's day one job would not be
putting out fires with the Russians that Barry had just started.
Barry was sorely perplexed. Jst why weren't the Russians doing what he had planned for
them to do - dump doo doo on the incoming President. Why weren't they sabre rattling and
putting incoming President Trump in his very first international incident, as Barry had
intended.
Nope, the Russians went all chill instead. Who cared what a lame duck POTUS does anyway.
Then Putin, invited all the Moscow foreign embassy kids over for a holiday party. No bombs,
no threats, not even any pouts. What was up with that? Good will and good cheer towards all
men, regardless of outgoing Boy President's little sand box snit.
What could have gone wrong, the Russians are supposed to be mad and escalating Barry's
"decisive" actions. Let's go snooping. And there begins one more chapter in Obamagate -
Waaaaaa, the Russians didn't do what I wanted them to do. I wanted them to rub schmutz in
Trump's face on Day One. Instead they offered us cookies and holiday crackers.
And in the process Team Obama left a nefarious paper trail. Thank you Susan - aka Lady
McBeth- Rice - your CYA memo for this final Obama Russian caper simply did not pass the smell
test. Barry was beaked the Russians did not start WWIII.
On the other side, evidence has emerged that makes it clear there were organized efforts to
collude against candidate Donald Trump - and then President Trump. For example:
Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump
in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.
A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against
Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material--in
part--to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.
There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press,
including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.
The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and
politially-motivated "unmaskings" of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.
Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary
Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump's alleged Russia
ties.
But it's not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these
events.
(Please note that nobody cited has been charged with wrongdoing or crimes, unless the charge
is specifically referenced. Temporal relationships are not necessarily evidence of a
correlation.)
"Collusion against Trump" Timeline2011
U.S. intel community vastly expands its surveillance authority, giving itself permission to
spy on Americans who do nothing more than "mention a foreign target in a single, discrete
communication." Intel officials also begin storing and entering into a searchable database
sensitive intelligence on U.S. citizens whose communications are accidentally or "incidentally"
captured during surveillance of foreign targets. Prior to this point, such intelligence was
supposed to be destroyed to protect the constitutional privacy rights the U.S. citizens.
However, it's required that names U.S. citizens be hidden or "masked" --even inside U.S. intel
agencies --to prevent abuse.
July 1, 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton improperly uses unsecured, personal email
domain to email President Obama from Russia.
2013
June 2013: FBI interviews U.S. businessman Carter Page, who's lived and worked in Russia,
regarding his ongoing contacts with Russians. Page reportedly tells FBI agents their time would
be better spent investigating Boston Marathon bombing (which the FBI's Andrew McCabe helped
lead). Page later claims his remark prompts FBI retaliatory campaign against him. The FBI,
under McCabe, will later wiretap Page after Page becomes a Donald Trump campaign adviser.
FBI secretly records suspected Russian industrial spy Evgeny Buryakov . It's later
reported that Page helped FBI build the case.
Sept. 4, 2013: James Comey becomes FBI Director, succeeding Robert Mueller.
2014
Russia invades Ukraine. Ukraine steps up hiring of U.S. lobbyists to make its case against
Russia and obtain U.S. aid. Russia also continues its practice of using U.S. lobbyists.
Ukraine forms National Anti-Corruption Bureau as a condition to receive U.S. aid. The
National Anti-Corruption Bureau later signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI related to
Trump-Russia probe.
Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa, a paid consultant for the Democratic National
Committee (DNC), begins researching lobbyist Paul
Manafort's Russia ties.
FBI investigates, and then wiretaps, Paul Manafort for allegedly not properly disclosing
Russia-related work. FBI fails to make a case, according to CNN, and discontinues wiretap.
August 2014: State Dept. turns over 15,000 pages of documents to Congressional Benghazi
committee, revealing former secretary of state Hillary Clinton used private server for
government email. Her mishandling of classified info on this private system becomes subject of
FBI probe.
2015
FBI opens
investigation into Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, including for donations from a
Chinese businessman and Clinton Foundation donor.
FBI official Andrew McCabe meets with Gov. McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally. Afterwards,
"McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated about $700,000 to Mr. McCabe's wife for her
campaign to become a Democrat state Senator in Virginia." The fact of the McAuliffe-related
donations to wife of FBI's McCabe, while FBI was investigating McAuliffe and Clinton later
becomes the subject of
conflict of interest inquiry by Inspector General.
Feb. 9, 2015: U.S. Senate forms Ukrainian caucus to further Ukrainian interests. Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) is a member.
March 4, 2015: New York Times breaks news about Clinton's improper handling of classified
email as secretary of state.
In internal emails , Clinton campaign chairman (and
former Obama adviser) John Podesta suggests Obama withhold Clinton's emails from Congressional
Benghazi committee under executive privilege.
March 2015: Attorney General Loretta Lynch privately directs FBI Director James Comey to
call FBI Clinton probe a "matter" rather than an "investigation." Comey follows the
instruction, though he later testifies that it made him
"queasy."
March 7, 2015: President Obama says he first learned of Clinton's improper email practices
"through news reports." Clinton campaign staffers privately
contradict that claim emailing: "it looks like [President Obama] just said he found out
[Hillary Clinton] was using her personal email when he saw it on the news." Clinton aide Cheryl
Mills responds, "We need to clean this up, [President Obama] has emails from" Clinton's
personal account.
May 19, 2015: Justice Dept. Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter Kadzik
emails
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta from a private Gmail account to give him a "heads ups"
involving Congressional questions about Clinton email.
Summer 2015: Democratic National Committee computers are hacked.
Sept. 2015: Glenn Simpson, co-founder of political opposition research firm Fusion GPS, is
hired by conservative website Washington Free Beacon to compile negative research on
presidential candidate Donald Trump and other Republicans.
Oct. 2015: President Obama uses a "confidentiality tradition" to keep his Benghazi emails
with Hillary Clinton secret.
Oct. 12, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at New York Field Office with Louis
Bladel.
Oct. 22, 2015: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
publicly states that Clinton is "not under criminal investigation."
Clinton testifies to House Benghazi committee.
Oct. 23, 2015: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta meets for dinner with small group of
friends including a top Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik.
Late 2015: Democratic operative Chalupa expands her
political opposition research about Paul Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. She
"occasionally shares her findings with officials from the Democratic National Committee and the
Clinton campaign."
Dec. 4, 2015: Donald Trump is beating his nearest Republican presidential competitor by 20
points in latest CNN poll .
Dec. 9, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at Washington Field Office with Charles
Kable.
Dec. 23, 2015: FBI Director Comey
names Bill Priestap as assistant director of Counterintelligence Division.
2016
Obama officials vastly expand their searches through NSA database for Americans and the
content of their communications. In 2013, there were 9,600 searches involving 195 Americans.
But in 2016, there are 30,355 searches of 5,288 Americans.
Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born ex-British spy leading anti-Trump
political opposition research project.
January 2016: Democratic operative Ukrainian-American Chalupa tells a
senior Democratic National Committee official that she feels there's a Russia connection with
Trump.
Jan. 29, 2016: FBI Director Comey promotes
Andrew McCabe to FBI Deputy Director.
McCabe takes lead on Clinton probe even though his wife received nearly $700,000 in campaign
donations through Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe, who's also under FBI investigation.
March 2016: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's email gets hacked.
Carter Page is named
as one of the Trump campaign's foreign policy advisers.
March 2, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Intelligence Division of Washington Field Office with Gerald Roberts,
Jr.
March 11, 2016: Russian Evgeny Buryakovwhich pleads guilty to spying in FBI case that Carter
Page reportedly assisted with.
March 25, 2016: Ukrainian-American operative for Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chalupa
meets with top Ukrainian officials at Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. to "expose ties
between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia," according to Politico. Chalupa
previously worked for the Clinton administration.
Ukrainian embassy proceeds to work "directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and
Russia to point them in the right directions," according
to an embassy official (though other officials later deny engaging in election-related
activities.)
March 29, 2016: Trump campaign hires Paul Manafort as manager of July Republican
convention.
March 30, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa briefs
Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff on Russia ties to Paul Manafort and Trump.
With "DNC's encouragement," Chalupa asks Ukrainian embassy to arrange meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to discuss Manafort's lobbying for Ukraine's former president Viktor
Yanukovych. The embassy declines to arrange meeting but becomes "helpful" in trading info and
leads.
Ukrainian embassy officials and Democratic operative Chalupa "coordinat[e] an investigation
with the Hillary team" into Paul Manafort, according to a source in Politico. This effort
reportedly includes working with U.S. media.
April 2016: There's a second breach of Democratic National Committee computers.
Washington Free Beacon
breaks off deal with Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS for political opposition research against
Trump.
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee lawyer Mark Elias and his law firm,
Perkins Coie, hire Fusion GPS for anti-Trump political research project.
Ukrainian member of parliament Olga Bielkova reportedly seeks meetings with
five dozen members of U.S. Congress and reporters including former New York Times reporter Judy
Miller, David Sanger of New York Times, David Ignatius of Washington Post, and Washington Post
editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.
April 5, 2016: Convicted spy Buryakov is turned over to Russia.
Week of April 6, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa and office of Rep.
Mary Kaptur (D-Ohio), co-chair of Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, discuss possible
congressional investigation or hearing on Paul Manafort-Russia "by September."
Chalupa begins working with investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, according to her later
account.
April 10, 2016: In national TV interview, President Obama states that Clinton did not intend
to harm national security when she mishandled classified emails. FBI Director James Comey later
concludes that Clinton should not face charges because she did not intend to harm national
security.
Around this time, the FBI begins drafting Comey's remarks closing Clinton email
investigation, though Clinton had not yet been interviewed.
April 12, 2016:" Ukrainian parliament member Olga Bielkova and a colleague meet"
with Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer with the McCain Institute. Bielkova also meets
with Liz Zentos of Obama's National Security Council, and State Department official Michael
Kimmage.
April 26, 2016: Investigative reporter Michael Isikoff publishes
story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort's business dealings with a Russian oligarch.
April 27, 2016 : The BBC publishes
an article titled, "Why Russians Love Donald Trump."
April 28, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa is invited to discuss her
research about Paul Manafort with 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine at Library of
Congress for Open World Leadership Center, a U.S. congressional agency. Chalupa invites
investigative reporter Michael Isikoff to "connect(s) him to the Ukrainians."
After the event, reporter Isikoff accompanies Chalupa to Ukrainian embassy reception.
May 3, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa emails Democratic National Committee (DNC)
that she'll share
sensitive info about Paul Manafort "offline" including "a big Trump component that will hit in
next few weeks."
May 4, 2016: Trump locks up Republican nomination.
May 19, 2016: Paul Manafort is named Trump campaign chair.
May 23, 2016: FBI probe into Virginia governor and Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe
becomes public. (McAuliffe is ultimately not charged with a crime.)
Justice Department Inspector General confirms it's looking into FBI's Andrew McCabe for
alleged conflicts of interest in handling of Clinton and Gov. McAuliffe probes in light of
McAuliffe directing campaign donations to McCabe's wife.
FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who are reportedly having an illicit affair, text
each other that Trump's ascension in the campaign will bring "pressure to finish" Clinton
probe.
Nellie Ohr, wife of Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr and former CIA
worker, goes on the payroll of Fusion GPS and assists with anti-Trump political opposition
research. Her husband, Bruce, reportedly fails to disclose her specific employer and work in
his Justice Dept. conflict of interest disclosures.
June 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson "
hires Yemen-born ex-British spy Christopher
Steele for anti-Trump political opposition research project."Steele uses info from Russian
sources "close to Putin" to compile unverified "dossier" later provided to reporters and FBI,
which the FBI uses to obtain secret wiretap.
The
Guardian and Heat Street report that the FBI applied for a FISA warrant in June 2016 to
"monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials"
but that the "initial request was denied."
June 7, 2016: Hillary Clinton locks up the Democrat nomination.
June 9, 2016: Meeting in Trump Tower includes Donald Trump Jr., Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner with Russian lawyer who said he has political
opposition research on Clinton. (No research was ultimately provided.) According to
CNN , the FBI has not yet restarted a wiretap against Manafort but will soon do so.
June 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) tells employees that its computer system
has been hacked. DNC blames Russia but refuses to let FBI examine its systems.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" publishes first hacked document from Clinton campaign chair
John Podesta.
June 17, 2016: Washington Post publishes front page story linking Trump to Russia: "Inside
Trump's Financial Ties to Russia and His Unusual Flattery of Vladimir Putin."
June 20, 2016: Christopher Steele
proposes taking some of Fusion GPS' research about Trump to FBI.
June 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing embarrassing, hacked emails from Clinton campaign
and Democratic National Committee.
June 27, 2016: Attorney General Loretta Lynch meets
privately with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona.
Late June 2016: DCLeaks website begins publishing Democratic National Committee emails.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI and
will later publicly release a "ledger" implicating Paul Manafort in allegedly improper
payments.
June 30, 2016: FBI circulates internal draft of public remarks for FBI Director Comey to
announce closing of Clinton investigation. It refers to Mrs. Clinton's "extensive" use of her
personal email, including "from the territory of sophisticated adversaries," and a July 1, 2012
email to President Obama from Russia. The draft concludes it's possible that hostile actors
gained access to Clinton's email account.
Comey's remarks are revised to replace reference to "the President" with the phrase:
"another senior government official." (That reference, too, is removed from the final
draft.)
Attorney General Lynch tells FBI she plans to publicly announce that
she'll accept whatever recommendation FBI Director Comey makes regarding charges against
Clinton.
July 2016: Ukraine minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov attacks Trump and Trump
campaign adviser Paul Manafort on Twitter and Facebook, calling Trump "an even bigger danger to
the US than terrorism."
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk writes on Facebook that Trump has
"challenged the very values of the free world."
Carter Page travels to Russia to give
a university commencement address. (Fusion GPS political opposition research would later quote
Russian sources as saying Page met with Russian officials, which Page denies under oath and is
not proven.)
One-time CIA operative Stefan Halper reportedly begins meetings with Trump advisers Carter
Page and George Papadopoulos, secretly gathering information for the FBI. These contacts begin
"prior to the date FBI Director Comey later claimed the Russian investigation began."
July 1, 2016: Under fire for meeting with former President Clinton amid the probe into his
wife, Attorney General Lynch publicly states she'll " accept
whatever FBI Director Comey recommends" without interfering.
FBI official Lisa Page texts her boyfriend, FBI official Peter Strzok, sarcastically
commenting that Lynch's proclamation is "a real profile in courage, since she knows no charges
will be brought."
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes Justice Department official Bruce Ohr that he wants
to discuss "our favourite business tycoon!" (apparently referencing Trump.)
July 2, 2016: FBI official Peter Strzok and other agents interview Clinton. They don't
record the interview. Two potential subjects of the investigation, Cheryl Mills and Heather
Samuelson, are allowed to attend as Clinton's lawyers.
July 5, 2016: FBI Director Comey recommends no charges against Clinton, though he concludes
she's been extremely careless in mishandling of classified information. Comey claims he hasn't
coordinated or reviewed his statement in any way with Attorney General Lynch's Justice
Department or other government branches. "They do not know what I am about to say," says
Comey.
Fusion GPS' Steele, an ex-British spy,
approaches FBI at an office in Rome with allegations against Trump, according to
Congressional investigators. Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr schedules a Skype conference call
with Steele.
Days after closing Clinton case, FBI official Peter Strzok signs document opening FBI probe
into Trump-Russia collusion.
July 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) aide Seth Rich, reportedly a Bernie
Sanders supporter, is shot twice in the back and killed. Police suspect a bungled robbery
attempt, though nothing was apparently stolen. Conspiracy theorists speculate that Rich "not
the Russians" had stolen DNC emails after he learned the DNC was unfairly favoring Clinton. The
murder remains unsolved.
July 2016: Trump adviser Carter Page makes a business trip to Russia.
Obama national security adviser Susan Rice begins to show increased interest in National
Security Agency (NSA) intelligence material including "unmasked Americans" identities,
according to news reports referring to White House logs.
July 18-21, 2016: Republican National Convention
Late July 2016 : FBI agent Peter Strzok opens counterintelligence investigation based on
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
Democratic operative and Ukrainian-American Chalupa leaves the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) to work full-time on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia; and provides
off-the-record guidance to "a lot of journalists."
July 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing hacked Democratic National Committee emails.
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange denies the email source is Russian.
July 25-28, 2016 : Democratic National Convention
July 30, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with ex-British spy Christopher
Steele at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Ohr brings his wife, Nellie, who -- like Steele --
works at Fusion GPS on the Trump-Russia oppo research project. Ohr
calls FBI Deputy Director McCabe.
July 31, 2016 : FBI's Peter Strzok formally begins
counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia and Trump. It's dubbed "Crossfire
Hurricane."
Aug. 3, 2016: Ohr reportedly meets with
McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page to discuss Russia-Trump collusion allegations relayed by
ex-British spy Steele. Ohr will later testify to Congress that he considered Steele's
information uncorroborated hearsay and that he told FBI agents Steele appeared motivated by a
"desperate" desire to keep Trump from becoming president.
Aug. 4, 2016: Ukrainian ambassador to U.S.
writes op-ed against Trump.
Aug. 8, 2016: FBI attorney Lisa Page texts her lover, FBI's head of Counterespionage Peter
Strzok,"[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok replies,"No. No
he won't. We'll stop it."
Aug. 14, 2016: New York Times breaks story about cash payments made a decade ago to Paul
Manafort by pro-Russia interests in Ukraine. The ledger was released and publicized by the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
Aug. 15, 2016: CNN reports the FBI is conducting an inquiry into Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort's payments from pro-Russia interests in Ukraine in 2007 and 2009.
After a meeting discussing the election in FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's office, FBI's
Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI attorney Lisa Page referring to the possibility
of Trump getting elected. "We can't take that risk," he writes. And they speak of needing an
"insurance policy."
Aug. 19, 2016: Paul Manafort resigns as Trump campaign chairman.
Ukrainian parliament member Sergii Leshchenko
holds news conference to draw attention to Paul Manafort and Trump's "pro-Russia" ties.
Aug. 22, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson who
identifies several "possible intermediaries" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Late August 2016:
Reportedly working for the FBI, one-time CIA operative Professor Halper meets with Trump
campaign co-chair Sam Clovis offering his services as a foreign-policy adviser, according to
The Washington Post. Halper would later offer to hire Carter Page.
Approx. Aug. 2016: FBI initiates a new
wiretap against ex-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, according to CNN, which extends at
least through early 2017.
Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Steele becomes FBI source and uses associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr as point of contact. Steele tells Ohr that he's "desperate that Donald Trump
not get elected."
President Obama
warns Russia not to interfere in the U.S. election
Sept. 2, 2016: FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text that "[President Obama] wants
to know everything we're doing."
Sept. 13, 2016 : The nonprofit First Draft, funded by Google, whose parent company is run by
major Hillary Clinton supporter and donor Eric Schmidt, announces initiative to tackle "fake
news." It appears to be the first use of the phrase in its modern context.
Sept. 15, 2016: Clinton computer manager Paul Combetta appears before House Oversight
Committee but refuses to answer questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
Sept. 19, 2016: At UN General Assembly meeting, Ukrainian President Poroshenko meets with
Hillary Clinton.
Mid-to-late Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Christopher Steele's FBI contact tells him the agency
wants to see his opposition research "right away" and offers
to pay him $50,000, according to the New York Times, for solid corroboration of his salacious,
unverified claims. Steele
flies to Rome , Italy to meet with FBI and provide a "full briefing."
Sept. 22, 2016: Clinton computer aide Brian Pagliano is held in contempt of Congress for
refusing to comply with subpoena.
Sept. 23, 2016: It's revealed that Justice Department has granted five Clinton officials
immunity from prosecution: former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, State Department staffers John
Bentel and Heather Samuelson, and Clinton computer workers Paul Combetta and Brian
Pagliano.
Yahoo News publishes
report by Michael Isikoff about Carter Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. (The article is
apparently based on leaked info from Fusion GPS Steele anti-Trump "dossier" political
opposition research.)
Sept. 25, 2016 : Trump associate Carter Page writes letter
to FBI Comey objecting to the so-called "witch hunt" involving him.
Sept. 26, 2016 : Obama administration asks secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC) court to allow National Counter Terrorism Center to access sensitive, "unmasked" intel
on Americans acquired by FBI and NSA. (The Court later approves the request.)
FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page that Carter Page's letter (dated the day before)
"...provides us a pretext to interview."
Sept. 27, 2016: Justice Department Assistant Attorney General of National Security Division
John Carlin announces he's stepping down. He was former chief of staff and senior counsel to
former FBI director Robert Mueller.
End of Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele
meet with reporters, including New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker
and CNN or ABC. One meeting is at office of Democratic National Committee general counsel.
Early October 2016: Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born author of anti-Trump
"dossier," meets in New
York with David Corn, Washington-bureau chief of Mother Jones.
According to
The Guardian, the FBI submits a more narrowly focused FISA wiretap request to replace one
turned down in June to monitor four Trump associates.
Oct. 3, 2016: FBI seizes computers belonging to Anthony Weiner, who is accused of sexually
texting an underage girl. Weiner is married to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. FBI learns
there are Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop but waits several weeks before
notifying Congress and reopening investigation.
Oct. 4, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Counterintelligence Division, New York Field Office with Charles
McGonigal.
Oct. 7, 2016: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Department of Homeland
Security issue statement saying Russian government is responsible for hacking Democrat emails
to disrupt 2016 election.
Oct. 13, 2016: President Obama gives a speech in support of the crackdown on "fake news" by
stating that somebody needs to step in and "curate" information in the "wild, wild West media
environment."
Oct. 14, 2016: FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page discussing talking points to convince FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking Dept. of Justice official to sign a warrant
to wiretap Trump associate Carter Page. The email subject line is "Crossfire FISA." "Crossfire
Hurricane" was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related
to Russia matters in the 2016 election.
"At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him," Strzok emailed Lisa Page less
than four weeks before Election Day.
Mid-Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporters about Trump political opposition research. The reporters are from the New
York Times, the Washington Post, and Yahoo News.
Oct. 16, 2016: Mary McCord is named Assistant Attorney General for Justice Department
National Security Division.
Oct. 18, 2016: President Obama
advises Trump to "stop whining" after Trump tweeted the election could be rigged. "There is
no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even you could even rig
America's elections," said Obama. He also calls Trump's "flattery" of Russian president Putin
"unprecedented."
In FBI emails, head of counterespionage Peter Strzok and his mistress FBI lawyer Lisa Page
discuss rushing approval for a FISA warrant for a Russia-related investigation code-named
"Dragon."
Oct. 19, 2016: Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes his last memo for anti-Trump
"dossier" political opposition research provided to FBI. The FBI reportedly authorizes payment
to Steele. Fusion GPS has reportedly paid him $160,000.
Approx. Oct. 21, 2016: For the second time in several months, Justice Department and FBI
apply to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates sign the application. This time, the request is approved based on
new FBI "evidence" including parts of Fusion GPS' "Steele dossier" and Michael Isikoff Yahoo
article. The FBI
doesn't tell the court that Trump's political opponent, the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, funded the "evidence."
Oct. 24, 2016: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of FBI Director James Comey and editor-in-chief of
the blog Lawfare, writes
of the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump wins. It's the same phrase FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had used when discussing the possibility of a Trump win.
Obama intel officials orally inform Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of an earlier
Inspector General review uncovering their "significant noncompliance" in following proper "702"
procedures safeguarding the National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence database with sensitive
info on US citizens.
Late Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporter from Mother Jones by Skype about Trump political opposition research.
Oct. 26, 2016: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court holds hearing with Obama intel
officials over their "702" surveillance violations. The judge criticizes
NSA for "institutional lack of candor" and states "this is a very serious Fourth Amendment
issue."
Oct. 28, 2016: FBI Director Comey notifies Congress that he's reopening Clinton probe due to
Clinton emails found on Anthony Wiener laptop several weeks earlier.
Oct. 30, 2016: Mother Jones writer David Corn is first to report on the anti-Trump
"dossier," quoting unidentified former spy, presumed to be Christopher Steele. FBI general
counsel James Baker had reportedly been in touch with Corn but Corn later denies Baker was the
leaker.
FBI terminates its relationship with Steele because Steele had
leaked his FBI involvement in Mother Jones article.
Steele reportedly maintains backchannel contact with Justice Dept. through Deputy Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr.
Oct. 31, 2016: New York Times
reports FBI is investigating Trump and found no illicit connections to Russia.
Nov. 1, 2016: FBI concludes ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled anti-Trump
"dossier" using Russian sources, leaked to press and is not suitable for use as a confidential
source. However, Steele continues to "help," according to Jan. 31, 2017 texts to Justice Dept.
official Bruce Ohr.
Nov. 3, 2016: FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI's Peter Strzok about her concerns that
Clinton might lose and Trump would become president: "The [New York Times] probability numbers
are dropping every day. I'm scared for our organization."
Nov. 6, 2016: FBI Director Comey tells Congress that Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner
computer do not change earlier conclusion: she should not be charged.
Nov. 8, 2016: Trump is elected president.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice's interest in NSA materials accelerates,
according to later news reports.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson shortly after election.
The FBI interviews Ohr about his ongoing contacts with Fusion GPS.
Nov. 9, 2016: An unnamed FBI attorney (later quoted in Dept. of Justice Inspector General
probe) texts another FBI employee, "I'm just devastated...I just can't imagine the systematic
disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the
rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going
to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids.
And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to
fight this again. Also Pence is stupid....Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal
documents investigating [Trump's] staff."
Nov. 10, 2016 : Emails
imply top FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and Bill Priestap engaged in
a new mission to "scrub" or research lists of associates of President-elect Trump, looking for
potential "derogatory" information.
President Obama
meets with President-elect Trump in the White House and reportedly advises Trump not to
hire Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Nov. 2016: National Security Agency Mike Rogers
meets with president-elect Trump and is criticized for "not telling the Obama
administration."
Nov. 17, 2016: Trump
moves his Friday presidential team meetings out of Trump Tower.
Nov. 18, 2016: Trump names Flynn his national security adviser. Over the next few weeks,
Flynn communicates with numerous international leaders.
Nov. 18-20, 2016: Sen. John McCain and his longtime adviser, David Kramer--an ex-U.S. State
Dept. official--attend a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia where former UK ambassador
to Russia Sir Andrew Wood
tells them about the Fusion GPS anti-Trump dossier. (Kramer is affiliated with the anti-Russia "Ukraine
Today" media organization). They discuss confirming the info has reached top levels of FBI for
action.
Nov. 21, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr, works for Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates, meets with FBI officials including Peter Strzok, Strzok's girlfriend--FBI attorney Lisa
Page, and another agent. Ohr's notes indicate the FBI "may go back to [ex-British spy] Chris
Steele" of Fusion GPS just 20 days after dismissing him.
Nov. 28, 2016: Sen. McCain associate David Kramer flies to London to meet Christopher Steele
for a briefing on the anti-Trump research. Afterward, Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson gives Sen.
McCain a copy of the "dossier." Steele also
passes anti-Trump info to top UK government official in charge of national security. Sen.
McCain soon arranges a meeting with FBI Director Comey.
Late Nov. 2016: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr officially tells
FBI about his contacts with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele and about Ohr's wife's contract work
for Fusion GPS.
Nov. 30, 2016 : UN Ambassador Samantha Power makes request to unmask the name of Trump
National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was "incidentally" captured by intel
surveillance.
Dec. 2016: Text messages between FBI officials Strzok and Page are later said to be "lost"
due to a technical glitch beginning at this point.
Dec. 2, 2016: UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper request to unmask the name of Trump National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn,
who was "incidentally" captured by intel surveillance.
Dec. 6, 2016: Two more Obama administration officials request to unmask the name of
Flynn.
Dec. 7, 2016 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Dec. 8 or 9, 2016: Sen. John McCain
meets with FBI Director Comey at FBI headquarters and
hands over Fusion GPS anti-Trump research, elevating the FBI's investigation into the
matter. The FBI compiles a classified two-page summary and attaches it to intel briefing note
on Russian cyber-interference in election for
President Obama .
Hillary Clinton makes a public appearance denouncing "fake news."
Hillary Clinton and Democratic operative David Brock of Media Matters announces he's leaving
board of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), one of his many
propaganda and liberal advocacy groups, to focus on "fake news" effort.
Brock later claims credit, privately to donors, for convincing Facebook to crack down on
conservative fake news.
Dec. 14, 2017 : There are
10 more requests to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence, including two by Power, CIA
Director Brennan, and six officials from the Treasury Dept.
Dec. 15, 2016: Obama intel officials "incidentally" spy on Trump officials meeting with the
United Arab Emirates crown prince in Trump Tower. This is taken to mean the government was
wiretapping the prince and "happened to capture" Trump officials communicating with him at
Trump Tower. Identities of Americans accidentally captured in such surveillance are strictly
protected or "masked" inside intel agencies for constitutional privacy reasons.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
secretly "unmasks" names of the Trump officials, officially revealing their identities.
They reportedly include: Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Director of National Intelligence Clapper expands rules to allow the National Security
Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate classified surveillance material within the government. The
same day,
17 Obama officials request the unmasking of Lt. Gen. Flynn in intelligence.
Dec. 16, 2016 : Five more Obama officials request unmasking of intelligence materials
regarding Lt. Gen. Flynn.
Dec. 23, 2016 : Power request another Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 28, 2016 :
Lt. Gen. Flynn speaks with Russia ambassador.
Clapper and the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey request Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 29, 2016: President Obama imposes sanctions against Russia for its alleged election
interference.
President-elect Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
speaks with Russian Ambassador to U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The calls are wiretapped by U.S.
intelligence and later leaked to the
press.
State Department
releases 2,800 work-related emails from Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, found
by FBI on laptop computer of Abedin's husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.
2017
Jan. 2017: According to CNN: a
wiretap reportedly continues against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, including
times he speaks to Trump, meaning U.S. intel officials could have "accidentally" captured
Trump's communications.
Justice Dept. Inspector General confirms it's investigating several aspects of FBI and
Justice Department actions during Clinton probe.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifies to Congress that Russia interfered
in U.S. elections by spreading fake news on social media.
Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik, who "tipped off" Hillary Clinton campaign regarding
Congressional questions about Clinton's email, leaves government work for private practice.
The FBI interviews a main source of Christopher Steele's "dossier" and learns the
information was merely bar room gossip and rumor never meant to be taken as fact or submitted
to the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Carter Page. (The FBI
does not notify the court and applies for, and receives, another wiretap against Page).
Early Jan. 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
again sign the application.
Jan. 3, 2017: Obama Attorney General Lynch signs rules Director of National Intelligence
Clapper expanded Dec. 15 allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate
surveillance within the government.
Jan. 5, 2017: Intelligence Community leadership including FBI Director Comey, Yates, CIA
Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, provides classified
briefing to President Obama, Vice President Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice on
alleged Russia hacking during 2016 campaign, according to notes later written by national
security adviser Susan Rice.
After briefing, according notes made later by Rice, President Obama convenes Oval Office
meeting with her, FBI Director Comey, Vice President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates. The "Steele dossier" is reportedly discussed. Also reportedly discussed: Trump National
Security Adviser Flynn's talks with Russia's ambassador.
Jan. 6, 2017: FBI Director Comey and other Intel leaders meet with President-Elect Trump and
his national security team at Trump Tower in New York to brief them on alleged Russian efforts
to interfere in the election.
Later, Obama national security adviser Susan Rice would write herself an email stating that
President Obama suggested they hold back on providing Trump officials with certain info for
national security reasons.
After Trump team briefing, FBI Director Comey meets alone with Trump to "brief him" on
Fusion GPS Steele allegations "to alert the incoming President to the existence of this
material," even though it was salacious and unverified. Comey later says Director of National
Intelligence Clapper asked him (Comey) to do the briefing personally.
Jan. 7, 2017 : Clapper and two other Obama administration officials request Flynn
unmasking.
Jan. 10, 2017: The 35-page Fusion GPS anti-Trump "dossier" is leaked to the media and
published. It reveals that sources of the unverified info are Russians close to President
Putin.
Email written by FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
indicates the FBI has been given the anti-Trump "dossier" by at least 3 different
anti-Trump sources.
A CIA official makes a Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 11, 2017 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 12, 2017: Obama administration finalizes new rules allowing NSA to spread "certain
intel to" other U.S. intel agencies without normal privacy protections.
Justice Dept. inspector general announces review of alleged misconduct by FBI Director Comey
and other matters related to FBI's Clinton probe as well as FBI leaks.
Vice President Joe Biden and the Treasury Secretary request the unmasking of Flynn in
intelligence communications.
Someone leaks to to David Ignatius of the Washington Post that Trump National Security
Adviser Flynn had called Russia's ambassador. "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the US
sanctions?" asked Ignatius in the article.
Jan. 13, 2017: Senate Intelligence Committee
opens investigation into Russia and U.S. political campaign officials.
Jan. 15, 2017: After leaks about Flynn's call with Russia's ambassador, Vice President-elect
Mike Pence tells the press that Flynn did not discuss U.S. sanctions on the call.
Jan. 20, 2017: Trump becomes president.
Fifteen minutes after Trump becomes president, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice
emails memo to herself purporting to summarize the Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting with President
Obama and other top officials. She states that Obama instructed the group to investigate "by
the book" and asked them to be mindful whether there were certain things that "could not be
fully shared with the incoming administration."
Jan. 22, 2017: Intel info leaks to Wall Street Journal which reports
"US counterintelligence agents have investigated communications" between Trump aide Gen.
Michael Flynn and Russia ambassador to the U.S. Kislyak to determine if any laws were
violated.
Jan. 23, 2017: Leak to Washington Post falsely claims Trump National Security Adviser Flynn
is not the subject of an investigation.
Jan. 24, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates sends two FBI agents, including Peter
Strzok, to the White House to question Gen. Flynn. FBI Director Comey later takes credit for
"sending a couple of guys" to interview Flynn, circumventing normal processes.
Notes kept
hidden until May 2020 show FBI officials discussing whether the goal of the meeting with Flynn
was to "get him to lie" so that he would be fired or prosecuted.
Jan. 26, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and a high-ranking colleague go to White
House to tell counsel Don McGahn that Flynn had lied to Pence about the content of his talks
with Russian ambassador and "the underlying conduct that Gen. Flynn had engaged in was
problematic in and of itself."
Jan. 27, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates again visits the White House.
Jan. 31, 2017: President Trump fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she refuses
to enforce his temporary travel ban on Muslims coming into U.S. from certain countries.
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele texts Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr who worked for
Yates: "B, doubtless a sad and crazy day for you re- SY."
Dana Boente becomes Acting Attorney General. (It's later revealed that Boente signed at
least one wiretap application against former Trump adviser Carter Page.)
Feb. 2, 2017: It's reported
that five men employed by House of Representatives Democrats, including leader Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-Florida), are under criminal investigation for allegedly "accessing House IT systems
without lawmakers' knowledge." Suspects include three Awan brothers "who managed office
information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and
other lawmakers."
Feb. 3, 2017: A Russian tech mogul named in the Steele "dossier" files defamation lawsuits
against BuzzFeed in the U.S. and Christopher Steele in the U.K. over the dossier's claims he
interfered in U.S. elections.
Feb. 8, 2017: Jeff Sessions becomes Attorney General and Dana Boente moves to Deputy
Attorney General.
Feb. 9, 2017: News of FBI wiretaps capturing Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen.
Michael Flynn speaking with Russia's ambassador is leaked to the press. New York Times and
Washington Post report Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions, despite his earlier denials. The Post
also reports the FBI "found nothing illicit" in the talks. The Post headline in an article by
Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima reads, "National Security Adviser Flynn Discussed
Sanctions with Russian Ambassador, Despite Denials, Officials Say."
Feb. 13, 2017 : Washington Post
reports Justice Dept. has opened a "Logan Act" violation investigation against Trump
national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Feb. 14, 2017: New York Times reports
that FBI had told Obama officials there was no "quid pro quo" (promise of a deal in exchange
for some action) discussed between Gen. Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak.
Gen. Flynn resigns, allegedly acknowledging he misled vice president Mike Pence about the
content of his discussions with Russia.
Comey says that, in a meeting, Trump states, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting
this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Comey says he
replies "he is a good guy." Trump later takes issue with Comey's characterization of the
meeting.
Feb. 15, 2017 : NPR
reports on "official transcripts of Flynn's calls" (saying they show no wrongdoing but that
doesn't rule out illegal activity).
Feb. 17, 2017: Washington Post reports that "Flynn told FBI he did not discuss sanctions"
with Russia ambassador and that "Lying to the FBI is a felony offense."
Feb. 24, 2017 : FBI interviews Flynn, according to later testimony from Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates.
March 1, 2017: Washington Post reports Attorney General Jeff Sessions has met with Russian
ambassador twice in the recent past (as did many Democrat and Republican officials). His
critics say that contradicts his earlier testimony to Congress. The article by Adam Entous,
Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller raises the idea of a special counsel to investigate.
March 2017: FBI Director James Comey
gives private briefings to members of Congress and reportedly says he does not believe Gen.
Flynn lied to FBI.
House Intelligence Committee requests list of unmasking requests Obama officials made. The
intel agencies do not provide the information, prompting a June 1 subpoena.
March 2, 2017: Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Russia-linked
investigations.
Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, becomes Acting Attorney General for Russia
Probe. It's later revealed that Rosenstein singed at least one wiretap application against
former Trump adviser Carter Page.
March 4, 2017: President Trump tweets: "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire
tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
and "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election
process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
March 10, 2017: Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, steps forward to support
Trump's wiretapping claim, revealing that the Obama administration intel officials recorded his
own communications with a Libyan official in Spring 2011.
March 14, 2017 : FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI official Peter Strzok: "Finally two pages
away from finishing [All the President's Men]. Did you know the president resigns in the end?!"
Strzok replies, "What?!?! God, that we should be so lucky. [smiley face emoji]"
March 20, 2017 : FBI Director Comey tells House Intelligence Committee he has "no
information that supports" the President's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by
the prior administration. "We have looked carefully inside the FBI," Comey says. "(T)he answer
is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components."
FBI Director Comey tells Congress there is "salacious and unverified" material in the Fusion
GPS dossier used by FBI, in part, to obtain Carter Page wiretap. (Under FBI "Woods Procedures,"
only facts carefully verified by the FBI are allowed to be presented to court to obtain
wiretaps.)
March 22, 2017: Chairman of House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) publicly
announces he's seen evidence of Trump associates being "incidentally" surveilled by Obama intel
officials; and their names being "unmasked" and illegally leaked. Nunes briefs President Trump
and holds a news conference. He's criticized for doing so. An ethics investigation is opened
into his actions but later clears him of wrongdoing.
In an interview on PBS, former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice responds to Nunes
allegations by stating: "I know nothing about this, I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes
was referring." (She later acknowledges unmasking names of Trump associates.)
March 2017: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) writes Justice Dept. accusing Fusion GPS of
acting as an agent for Russia "without properly registering" due to its pro-Russia effort to
kill a law allowing sanctions against foreign human rights violators. Fusion GPS denies the
allegations.
March 24, 2017: Fusion GPS declines to answer Sen. Grassley's questions or document
requests.
March 27, 2017: Former Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas admits she encouraged
Obama and Congressional officials to "get as much information as they can" about Russia and
Trump officials before inauguration. "That's why you have the leaking," she told MSNBC.
Early April, 2017: A third FBI wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page is
approved.
Again, FBI Director James Comey, and acting attorney general Dana Boente sign the application.
Trump officials including Mike Pompeo at the CIA are now leading the intel agencies during the
wiretap.
April 3, 2017: Multiple news reports state that Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
had requested and reviewed "unmasked" intelligence on Trump associates whose information was
"incidentally" collected by intel agencies.
April 4, 2017: Obama former National Security Adviser Rice admits, in an interview, that she
asked to reveal names of U.S. citizens previously masked in intel reports. She says her
motivations were not political. When asked if she leaked names, Rice states, "I leaked nothing
to nobody."
April 6, 2017: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes recuses himself from Russia
part of his committee's investigation.
April 11, 2017: FBI Director Comey
appoints Stephen Laycock as special agent in charge of Counterintelligence Division for
Washington Field Office.
Washington Post reports FBI secretly obtained wiretap against Trump campaign associate
Carter Page last summer. (Later, it's revealed the summer wiretap had been turned down, but a
subsequent application was approved in October.)
April 20, 2017: Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord resigns as acting head of
Justice Dept. National Security Division. She'd led probes of Russia interference in election
and Trump-Russia ties.
April 28, 2017: Dana Boente is appointed acting assistant attorney general for national
security division to replace Mary McCord. (Boente has signed one of the questioned wiretap
applications for Carter Page.)
National Security Agency (NSA) submits remedies for its egregious surveillance violations
(revealed last October) to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court promising to "no longer
collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target." The
NSA also begins deleting collected data on U.S. citizens it had been storing.
May 3, 2017: FBI Director Comey
testifies he's "mildly nauseous" at the idea he might have affected election with the 11th
hour Clinton email notifications to Congress.
Comey also testifies
he's "never" been an anonymous news source on "matters relating to" investigating the Trump
campaign.
Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice declines Republican Congressional
request to testify at a hearing about unmaskings and surveillance.
May 8, 2017: Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper testify to Congress. They
admit having reviewed "classified documents in which Mr. Trump, his associates or members
of Congress had been unmasked," and possibly discussing it with others under the Obama
administration.
May 9, 2017: President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey. Andrew McCabe becomes acting
FBI Director.
May 12, 2017: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of ex-FBI Director James Comey and editor in chief
of Lawfare, contacts New York Times reporter Mike Schmidt to
leak conversations he'd had with Comey as FBI Director that are critical of President
Trump.
May 16, 2017: New York Times
publishes leaked account of FBI memoranda recorded by former FBI Director James Comey.
Comey later acknowledges engineering the leak of the FBI material through his friend, Columbia
Law School professor Daniel Richman, to spur appointment of special counsel to investigate
President Trump.
Trump reportedly
interviews , but passes over, former FBI Director Robert Mueller for position of FBI
Director.
May 17, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as Special
Counsel, Russia-Trump probe. Mueller and former FBI Director Comey are friends and worked
closely together in previous Justice Dept. and FBI positions.
The gap of missing text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ends. The
couple is soon assigned to the Mueller team investigating Trump.
May 19, 2017: Anthony Wiener, former Congressman and husband of Hillary Clinton confidant
Huma Abedin, turns himself in to FBI in case of underage sexting ; his third major
kerfuffle over sexting in six years.
May 22, 2017 : FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI Attorney Lisa Page about
whether Strzok should join Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of Trump-Russia collusion.
Strzok spoke of "unfinished business" that he "unleashed" with the Clinton classified email
probe and stated: "Now I need to fix it and finish it." He also referred to the Special Counsel
probe, which hadn't yet begun in earnest, as an "investigation leading to impeachment." But he
also stated he had a "gut sense and concern there's no big there there."
June 1, 2017: House Intelligence Committee issues 7 subpoenas, including for information
related to unmaskings requested by ex-Obama officials national security adviser Susan Rice,
former CIA Director John Brennan, and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power.
June 8, 2017: Former FBI Director James Comey admits having engineered
leak of his own memo to New York Times to spur appointment of a special counsel to
investigate President Trump.
June 20, 2017: Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe names Philip Celestini as Special Agent in
Charge of the Intelligence Division, Washington Field Office.
Late June, 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page for the fourth and final time that we know of. It lasts through
late Sept. 2017. (Page is never ultimately charged with a crime.) FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sign the renewal application.
Late July, 2017: FBI reportedly searches Paul Manafort's Alexandria, Virginia home.
Summer 2017: FBI lawyer Lisa Page is reassigned from Mueller investigation. Her boyfriend,
FBI official Peter Strzok is removed from Mueller investigation after the Inspector General
discovers compromising texts between Strzok and Page. Congress is not notified of the
developments.
Aug. 2, 2017: Christopher Wray is named FBI Director.
August 2017: Ex-FBI Director Comey signs a book deal for a reported $2 million.
Sept. 13, 2017: Under questioning from Congress, Obama's former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice reportedly admits having requested to see the protected identities of Trump
transition officials "incidentally" captured by government surveillance.
Approx. Oct. 10, 2017: Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
pleads guilty to lying to FBI about his unsuccessful efforts during the campaign to
facilitate meetings between Trump officials and Russian officials.
Oct. 17, 2017: Obama's former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power reportedly tells Congressional
investigators that many of the hundreds of "unmasking" requests in her name during the election
year were not made by her.
Oct. 24, 2017: Congressional Republicans announce new investigations into a 2010
acquisition that gave Russia control of 20% of U.S. uranium supply while Clinton was secretary
of state; and FBI decision not to charge Clinton in classified info probe.
Oct. 30, 2017: Special Counsel Mueller
charges ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates with tax
and money laundering crimes related to their foreign work. The charges do not appear related to
Trump.
Nov. 2, 2017: Carter Page
testifies to House Intelligence committee under oath without an attorney and asks to have
the testimony published. He denies ever meeting the Russian official that Fusion GPS claimed
he'd met with in July 2016.
Nov. 5, 2017: Special Counsel Robert Mueller
files charges against ex-Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for
allegedly lying to FBI official Peter Strzok about contacts with Russian ambassador during
presidential transition.
Dec. 1, 2017: Former national security adviser Gen. Flynn pleads guilty of
lying to the FBI. Prosecutors recommend no prison time (but later reverse their
recommendation).
James Rybicki steps down as chief of staff to FBI Director.
Dec. 6, 2017: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is reportedly stripped of one of
his positions at Justice Dept. amid controversy over his and his wife's role in anti-Trump
political opposition research.
Dec. 7, 2017: FBI Director Wray incorrectly testifies that there have been no "702"
surveillance abuses by the government.
Dec. 19, 2017: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly testifies that the wiretap
against Trump campaign official Carter Page would not have been approved without the Fusion GPS
info. FBI general counsel James Baker, who is himself subject of an Inspector General probe
over his alleged leaks to the press, attends as McCabe's attorney. McCabe acknowledges that if
Baker had met with Mother Jones reporter David Corn, it would have been inappropriate.
FBI general counsel James Baker is
reassigned amid investigation into his alleged anti-Trump related contacts with
media.
2018
Jan. 4, 2018: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
refer criminal
charges against Christopher Steele to the FBI for investigation. There's an apparent
conflict of interest with the FBI being asked to investigate Steele since the FBI has used
Steele's controversial political opposition research to obtain wiretaps.
Jan. 8, 2018: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr loses his second title at the agency.
Jan. 10, 2018: Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen files defamation
suits against Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed News for publishing the "Steele dossier," which he says
falsely
claimed he met Russian government officials in Prague, Czech Republic, in August of
2016.
Jan. 11, 2018: House of Representatives approves government's
controversial "702" wireless surveillance authority. The Senate follows suit.
Jan. 19, 2018: Justice Dept. produces to Congress some text messages between FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok but states that FBI lost texts between December 14, 2016 and May 17,
2017 due to a technical glitch.
President Trump signs six-year extension of "702" wireless surveillance authority.
Jan. 23, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey friend who leaked on behalf of Comey to New York
Times to spur appointment of special counsel is now Comey's attorney.
Jan. 25, 2018: Justice Dept. Inspector General notifies Congress it has recovered missing
text messages between FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
Jan. 27, 2018: Edward O'Callaghan is
named Acting Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division.
Jan. 29, 2018: Andrew McCabe steps down as Deputy
FBI Director
ahead of his March retirement.
Jan. 30, 2018: News reports
allege that Justice Department Inspector General is looking into why FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe appeared to wait three weeks before acting on new Clinton emails found right
before the election.
Feb. 2, 2018: House Intelligence Committee (Nunes) Republican memo is released. It
summarizes classified documents revealing for the first time that Fusion GPS political
opposition research was used, in part, to justify Carter Page wiretap; along with Michael
Isikoff Yahoo News article based on the same opposition research.
Memo also states that Fusion GPS set up back channel to FBI through Nellie Ohr, who
conducted opposition research on Trump and passed it to her husband, associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr.
Feb. 7, 2018: Justice Department official David Laufman, who helped oversee the Clinton and
Russia probes, steps down as chief of National Security Division's Counterintelligence and
Export Control Section.
Feb. 9, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey assistant Josh Campbell leaves FBI for job at
CNN.
Justice Department Associate Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Rachel Brand,
resigns.
Feb. 16, 2018: Special counsel Mueller obtains guilty plea from a Dutch attorney for
lying to federal investigators about the last time he spoke to Rick Gates regarding a 2012
project related to Ukraine. The
plea does not appear to relate to 2016 campaign or Trump. The Dutch attorney is married to
the daughter of a Russian oligarch who's suing Buzzfeed and Christopher Steele for alleged
defamation in the "dossier."
Feb. 22, 2018: Former State Dept. official and Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer
invokes his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before House Intelligence Committee. Kramer
reportedly picked up the anti-Trump political opposition research in London and delivered it to
Sen. McCain who delivered it to the FBI.
Special counsel Mueller
files new charges against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former campaign
aide Rick Gates, accusing them of additional tax and bank fraud crimes. The allegations appear
to be unrelated to Trump.
Fri. Feb. 23, 2018: Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates,
pleads guilty to conspiracy and lying to investigators (though he issues a statement saying
he's innocent of the indictment charges). The allegations and plea have no apparent link to
Trump-Russia campaign collusion.
Sat. Feb. 24, 2018: Democrats on House Intel Committee release
their rebuttal memo to the Republican version that summarized alleged FBI misconduct re: using
the GPS Fusion opposition research to get wiretap against Carter Page.
March 12, 2018 : House Intelligence Committee
closes Russia-Trump investigation with no evidence of collusion.
Fri. March 16, 2018 : Attorney General Jeff Sessions fires Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe, based on recommendation from FBI ethics investigators.
Thurs. March 22, 2018 : President Trump announces plans to replace
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John
Bolton.
House Judiciary Committee issues
subpoenas to Department of Justice after Department failed to produce documents.
May 4, 2018 : Amid allegations that he was responsible for improper leaks, FBI attorney
James Baker resigns and joins the Brookings Institution, writing for the anti-Trump blog
"Lawfare" that first discussed the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump got
elected.
2019
March 2019 : Special Counsel Robert Mueller signs off on his final report stating
that there was no collusion or coordination between Trump -- or any American -- and Russia. He
leaves as an open question the issue of whether Trump took any actions that could be considered
obstruction. No new charges are recommended or filed with the issuance of the report.
June 2019 : Former Trump National Security Adviser Flynn fire his defense attorneys and
hires Sidney Powell.
Oct. 25, 2019 : Flynn files a motion to dismiss the case against him due to prosecutorial
misconduct. Among other claims, Flynn says prosecutors failed to turn over exculpatory material
tending to show his innocence. Prosecutors claim they were not required to turn over the
information.
Dec. 19, 2019 : An investigation by Inspector General
Michael Horowitz finds egregious abuses by FBI and Justice Department officials in obtaining
wiretaps of former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. The report also says an FBI attorney
doctored a document, providing false information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, to get the wiretaps.
2020
Jan. 7, 2020 : Prosecutors reverse their earlier recommendation for no prison time, and ask
for up to six months in prison for Flynn.
Jan. 16, 2020 : Flynn files a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Jan. 23, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice
finds that two of its wiretaps against former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page were
improperly obtained and are therefore invalid.
Feb. 10, 2020: The Dept. of Justice asks a judge to sentence Trump associate Roger Stone to
7 to 9 years in prison for lying about his communications with WikiLeaks.
Feb. 11, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice reduces its recommendation for prison time for Stone
after President Trump and others criticized the initial representation as excessive. Stone
receives three years and four months in prison.
Feb. 20, 2020: President Trump
appoints Richard Grenell as acting Director of National Intelligence. Grenell begins
facilitating the release of long withheld documents regarding FBI actions against Trump
campaign associates.
March 31, 2020 : A Justice Dept. Inspector General's
analysis of more than two dozen wiretap applications from eight FBI field offices over two
months finds "we do not have confidence" that the bureau followed standards to ensure the
accuracy of the wiretap requests.
April 3, 2020 : Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asks FBI to review whether it
wiretaps are valid in light of information about problems and abuses.
April 29, 2020 : Newly-released documents show FBI officials, prior to
their original interview with Flynn, discussing whether the goal was to try to get him to lie
to get him fired or so that he could be prosecuted.
May 7, 2020 : The Department of Justice announces a decision to drop the case against
Flynn.
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long
Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete
evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server.
Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry: "We just don't have the evidence..."
CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified
December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about
whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.
The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and
others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI's probe into now debunked
claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election. The
CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated
from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped
charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.
Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being
warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn
over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the
DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at
all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically]
from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.
Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:
"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in
this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence
that says it actually left."
"There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial
evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
" There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network... We
didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the
circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but
we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out
of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
Rep. Adam Schiff: Democrat held up interview transcripts, but finally relented after acting
intel director Richard Grenell suggested he would release them himself. (Senate Television via
AP)
In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation
of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving
the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken
"screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all
the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they
would have knowledge of what was in the email. There would be ways to copy it. You could take
screenshots."
Henry's 2017 testimony that there was no "concrete evidence" that the emails were stolen
electronically suggests that Mueller was at best misleading in his 2019 final report, in which
he stated that Russian intelligence "appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70
gigabytes of data from the file server."
It is unlikely that Mueller had another source to make his more confident claim about
Russian hacking.
The stolen emails, which were published by Wikileaks – whose founder, Julian Assange
has long denied they came from Russia – were embarrassing to the party because, among
other things, they showed the DNC had favored Clinton during her 2016 primary battles against
Sen. Bernie Sanders for the presidential nomination. The DNC eventually issued an apology to
Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email." The DNC hack was
separate from the FBI's investigation of Clinton's use of a private server while serving as
President Obama's Secretary of State.
The disclosure that CrowdStrike found no evidence that alleged Russian hackers exfiltrated
any data from the DNC server raises a critical question: On what basis, then, did it accuse
them of stealing the emails? Further, on what basis did Obama administration officials make far
more forceful claims about Russian hacking?
Michael Sussmann: This lawyer at Perkins Coie hired CrowdStrike to investigate the DNC
breach. He was also involved with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele in producing the
discredited Steele dossier.
The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which formally accused Russia of a
sweeping influence campaign involving the theft of Democratic emails, claimed the Russian
intelligence service GRU "exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC." A July 2018
indictment claimed that GRU officers "stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees."
According to everyone concerned, the cyber-firm played a critical role in the FBI's
investigation of the DNC data theft. Henry told the panel that CrowdStrike "shared intelligence
with the FBI" on a regular basis, making "contact with them over a hundred times in the course
of many months." In congressional testimony that same year, former FBI Director James Comey
acknowledged that the FBI "never got direct access to the machines themselves," and instead
relied on CrowdStrike, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
According to Comey, the FBI would have preferred direct access to the server, and made
"multiple requests at different levels," to obtain it. But after being rebuffed, "ultimately it
was agreed to [CrowdStrike] would share with us what they saw."
Henry's testimony seems at variance with Comey's suggestion of complete information sharing.
He told Congress that CrowdStrike provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard
drives, out of a total number of "in excess of 10, I think." In other cases, Henry said,
CrowdStrike provided its own assessment of them. The firm, he said, provided "the results of
our analysis based on what our technology went out and collected." This disclosure follows
revelations from the case of Trump operative Roger Stone that CrowdStrike provided three
reports to the FBI in redacted and draft form. According to federal prosecutors, the government
never obtained CrowdStrike's unredacted reports.
CrowdStrike's newy disclosed admissions raise new questions about whether Special Counsel
Robert Mueller (above), intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.
There are no indications that the Mueller team accessed any additional information beyond
what CrowdStrike provided. According to the Mueller report, "the FBI later received images of
DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." But if the FBI obtained only "copies" of data
traffic – and not any new evidence -- those copies would have shown the same absence of
"concrete evidence" that Henry admitted to.
Adding to the tenuous evidence is CrowdStrike's own lack of certainty that the hackers it
identified inside the DNC server were indeed Russian government actors. Henry's explanation for
his firm's attribution of the DNC hack to Russia is replete with inferences and assumptions
that lead to "beliefs," not unequivocal conclusions. "There are other nation-states that
collect this type of intelligence for sure," Henry said, "but what we would call the tactics
and techniques were consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state." In its
investigation, Henry said, CrowdStrike "saw activity that we believed was consistent with
activity we'd seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government. We said that we
had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government."
But CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation months after it accused Russia in
December 2016 of hacking the Ukrainian military, with the same software that the firm had
claimed to identify inside the DNC server.
The firm's work with the DNC and FBI is also colored by partisan affiliations. Before
joining CrowdStrike, Henry served as executive assistant director at the FBI under Mueller.
Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council, the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy
toward Russia. And the newly released testimony confirms that CrowdStrike was hired to
investigate the DNC breach by Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie – the same Democratic-tied
law firm that hired Fusion GPS to produce the discredited Steele dossier, which was also
treated as central evidence in the investigation. Sussmann played a critical role in generating
the Trump-Russia collusion allegation. Ex-British spy and dossier compiler Christopher Steele
has
testified in British court that Sussmann shared with him the now-debunked Alfa Bank server
theory, alleging a clandestine communication channel between the bank and the Trump
Organization.
Henry's recently released testimony does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC. What it
does make clear is that Obama administration officials, the DNC and others have misled the
public by presenting as fact information that they knew was uncertain. The fact that the
Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the
heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that
the federal investigation was compromised from the start.
The 2017 Henry transcript was one of dozens just released after a lengthy dispute. In
September 2018, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee unanimously voted to
release witness interview transcripts and sent them to the U.S. intelligence community for
declassification review. In March 2019, months after Democrats won House control, Rep. Adam
Schiff ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to withhold the
transcripts from White House lawyers seeking to review them for executive privilege. Schiff
also refused to release vetted transcripts, but finally relented after acting ODNI Director
Richard Grenell suggested this month that he would release them himself.
Several transcripts, including the interviews of former CIA Director John Brennan and Comey,
remain unreleased. And in light of the newly disclosed Crowdstrike testimony, another secret
document from the House proceedings takes on urgency for public viewing. According to Henry,
Crowdstrike also provided the House Intelligence Committee with a copy of its report on the DNC
email theft.
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/15/2020 - 11:54 The camera feed to former Obama Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper suddenly cut out while CNN 's John Berman was pressing him to answer questions about
leaks of classified information to the media, one day after a declassified memo revealed a list
of Obama administration officials who made 'unmasking' requests regarding President Trump's
first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Included in the list are Clapper, former Vice
President Joe Biden, President Obama's Chief of Staff, and former CIA Director John Brennan.
Notably, the requests began before Flynn's call with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -
the classified details of which were leaked to the Washington Post in early 2017 as noted by
the
Washington Examiner .
"Asking for names, nothing wrong with that, unmasking in of itself, nothing wrong with
that," Berman said to Clapper. "Leaking classified information, and by definition, these phone
calls were classified, that's a problem, correct?"
Clapper, a CNN security analyst, responded "absolutely," before the image froze and his
screen went dark.
Watch: Clapper just conceded on CNN that "No, I did not" find evidence of Trump-Russia
collusion. Then, after being asked about leaking to the press, his video connection went
dead... pic.twitter.com/Ab13DVFVQa
Once his feed was restored, Clapper insisted that he wasn't the leaker.
"David Ignatius put out this famous column on Jan. 12 where he mentioned the phone call
between Michael Flynn -- the Dec. 29 phone call. Did you leak that information?" Berman asked.
"I did not," responded Clapper."
Once Clapper was back, he was asked whether he leaked the Flynn call to David Ignatius. He
says: "No, I did not." pic.twitter.com/mAww8wsp9U
Clapper insisted during Thursday's interview that unmasking a US citizen is a "routine
thing" when "you have a valid foreign intelligence target engaging with a U.S. person."
That said, he c ouldn't remember what prompted the request "that was made on my behalf for
unmasking" regarding Flynn, but that the "general concern" was over his engagement with
Russians during the Trump team's transition to the White House. Of course, as even Slate wrote
back in 2017, "Meetings between the president-elect's team and foreign officials are Normal,"
but that "Negotiations that undermine a sitting president's foreign policy are not
unprecedented, but remain highly controversial and Not Normal.'
John Durham, the U.S. attorney picked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the
origins of the Trump-Russia inquiry, is scrutinizing the Flynn unmaskings and subsequent
leaks as part of his inquiry.
The Connecticut federal prosecutor is reportedly looking into a Jan. 12, 2017, article in
the Washington Post by Ignatius, which said Flynn "cultivates close Russian contacts" and
cited a "senior U.S. government official" who revealed Flynn had talked to former Russian
ambassador Sergey Kislyak on Dec. 29, 2016, which was the same day former President Barack
Obama expelled 35 Russian officials . It is likely that this revelation, and subsequent leaks
about the alleged contents of Flynn's discussions with Kislyak, were based on classified
information. -
Washington Examiner
And now, after destroying Flynn's life in a perjury trap, the Obama all-stars are
scrambling.
Chancellor Angela Merkel that stupid? "Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
Notable quotes:
"... That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all attributions of cyberattacks are. ..."
"... Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms. Merkel's office just last week. ..."
"... This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike, had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet: ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server. ..."
"... The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was taken. ..."
"... The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group? ..."
The New York Times continues its anti-Russia campaign with a report about an old
cyberattack on German parliament which also targeted the parliament office of Chancellor Angela
Merkel.
Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
But asked how Berlin intended to deal with recent revelations implicating the Russians,
Ms. Merkel was less forthcoming.
"We always reserve the right to take measures," she said in Parliament, then immediately
added, "Nevertheless, I will continue to strive for a good relationship with Russia, because
I believe that there is every reason to always continue these diplomatic efforts."
That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all
attributions of cyberattacks are.
Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they
took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms.
Merkel's office just last week.
Officials say the report traced the attack to the same Russian hacker group that targeted
the Democratic Party during the U.S. presidential election campaign in 2016.
This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the
alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike,
had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or
that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet:
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the
years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had
no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee's server.
...
[CrowdStrike President Shawn] Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of
the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by
the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged
Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in
fact know if such a theft occurred at all : "We did not have concrete evidence that the data
was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was
exfiltrated," Henry said.
The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided
them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was
taken.
The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing
but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no
evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the
attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group?
While the NYT also mentions that NSA actually snooped on Merkel's private phonecalls
it tries to keep the spotlight on Russia:
As such, Germany's democracy has been a target of very different kinds of Russian
intelligence operations, officials say. In December 2016, 900,000 Germans lost access to
internet and telephone services following a cyberattack traced to Russia.
That mass attack on internet home routers, which by the way happened in November 2016 not in
December, was done with the Mirai
worm :
More than 900,000 customers of German ISP Deutsche Telekom (DT) were knocked offline this
week after their Internet routers got infected by a new variant of a computer worm known as
Mirai. The malware wriggled inside the routers via a newly discovered vulnerability in a
feature that allows ISPs to remotely upgrade the firmware on the devices. But the new Mirai
malware turns that feature off once it infests a device, complicating DT's cleanup and
restoration efforts.
...
This new variant of Mirai builds on malware
source code released at the end of September . That leak came a little more a week after
a botnet based on Mirai was used in a record-sized
attack that caused KrebsOnSecurity to go offline for several
days . Since then, dozens of new Mirai botnets have emerged , all
competing for a finite pool of vulnerable IoT systems that can be infected.
The attack has not been attributed to Russia but to a British man who offered attacks as a
service.
He was arrested in February 2017:
A 29-year-old man has been arrested at Luton airport by the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA)
in connection with a massive internet attack that disrupted telephone, television and
internet services in Germany last November. As regular readers of We Live Security will
recall, over 900,000 Deutsche Telekom broadband customers were knocked offline last November
as an alleged attempt was made to hijack their routers into a destructive botnet.
...
The NCA arrested the British man under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Germany's Federal
Criminal Police Office (BKA) who have described the attack as a threat to Germany's national
communication infrastructure.
According to German prosecutors, the British man allegedly offered to sell access to the
botnet on the computer underground. Agencies are planning to extradite the man to Germany,
where – if convicted – he could face up to ten years imprisonment.
During the trial, Daniel admitted that he never intended for the routers to cease
functioning. He only wanted to silently control them so he can use them as part of a DDoS
botnet to increase his botnet firepower. As discussed earlier he also confessed being paid by
competitors to takedown Lonestar.
In Aug 2017 Daniel was
extradited back to the UK to face extortion charges after attempting to blackmail Lloyds
and Barclays banks. According to press reports, he asked the Lloyds to pay about
£75,000 in bitcoins for the attack to be called off.
The Mirai attack is widely known to have been attributed to Kaye. The case has been
discussed
at length . IT security journalist Brian Krebs, who's site was also attacked by a Mirai bot
net, has written several
stories about it. It was never 'traced to Russia' or attributed it to anyone else but Daniel
Kaye.
Besides that Kennhold writes of "Russia's foreign intelligence service, known as the
G.R.U.". The real Russian foreign intelligence services is the SVR. The military intelligence
agency of Russia was once called GRU but has been renamed to GU.
The New York Times just made up the claim about Russia hacking in Germany from
absolutely nothing. The whole piece was published without even the most basic research and fact
checking.
It seems that for the Times anything can be blamed on Russia completely independent
of what the actually facts say.
Posted by b on May 14, 2020 at 14:38 UTC |
Permalink
Along the same lines, it always bothered me that among all the (mostly contrived)
arguments about who might have been responsible for the alleged "hacking" of DNC as well as
Clinton's emails, we never heard mentioned one single time the one third party that we
absolutely KNOW had intercepted and collected all of those emails--the NSA! Never a peep
about how US intelligence services could be tempted to mischief when in possession of
everyone's sensitive, personal information.
The "Fancy Bear" group (also knowns as advanced persistent threat 28) that is claimed to be
behind the hacks is likely little more than the collection of hacking tools shared on the
open and hidden parts of RuNet or Russian-speaking Internet. Many of these Russian-speaking
hackers are
actually Ukrainians .
Some of the Russian hackers also worked for the FSB, like the members of Shaltai
Boltai group that were later arrested for treason. George Eliason claims Shaltai Boltai
actually worked for Ukrainians. For a short version of the story read this:
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian
intelligence linked to the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at
one of his recent essays...
Patrick
Armstrong , May 14 2020 15:27 utc |
3 Wow! You've done it again. I was just writing my Sitrep and thinking what an amazing
coincidence it is that, just as the Russian pipelaying ship arrived to finish Nord Stream,
Merkel is told that them nasty Russkies are doing nasty things. I come here and you've
already solved it. Yet another scoop. Congratulations.
The NYT has removed that sentence about the attack on internet/phone access:
"Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed responsibility for a 2016
cyberattack in which 900,000 Germans lost access to internet and telephone services. The
attack was carried out by a British citizen, not Russia. The article also misstated when the
attack took place. It was in November, not December. The sentence has been removed from the
article. "
From this we can learn that anything can be blamed by MSM, completely independent of what the
facts are. It is not limited to allegations related to Russia or China, but any and all
claims by MSM that have no direct reference to provable fact.
great coverage b... thank you... facts don't matter.. what matters is taking down any
positive image of russia, or better - putting up a constantly negative one... of this the
intel and usa msm are consistent... the sad reality is a lot of people will believe this
bullshit too...
i was just reading paul robinsons blog last night -
#DEMOCRACY RIP AND THE NARCISSISM OF RUSSIAGATE .. even paul is starting to getting
pissed off on the insanity of the media towards russia which is rare from what i have read
from him!
@ 3 patrick armstrong.. keep up the good work!! thanks for your work..
There is already a correction made to the DT attack - someone reads MofA! Shame they don't
get more of their new interpretation form here.
Whole piece reads here like it started as a Merkel gets close to Russia piece, shown
around to colleagues and politicians for feedback, and a ton of fake "why Merkel actually
hates the Russians" nonsense was added in.
After all pretty much everyone has tapped Merkel's phone by now.
Absolutely remarkable; in fact, 'stunning', as he uses it, is not too much of a stretch. The
'liberal elites' just go right on lying even though the sworn testimony of FBI interviewers
is available for anyone to read, as well as the chilling manipulations of Strozk and Page,
both of whom should be in prison and perhaps will be. And that fucker Schiff should swing. I
can't believe the transformation of Carlson from Bush shill to the reincarnation of Edward R.
Murrow. He makes this case so compellingly that nobody could watch that clip and not believe
that Flynn was railroaded from the outset. And what were they allegedly going to jail Flynn's
son for? Does anyone know? Were they just going to make something up? That is terrifying, and
almost argues for the disbanding of the FBI, although it demonstrably still contains honest
agents – as Carlson asks rhetorically, how many times have they done this already, and
gotten away with it?
It's hard to imagine anyone would vote Democrat now.
Couldn't have been too much of a crime, if they offered to let him go in exchange for Flynn
pleading guilty to lying. Actually, you'd kind of think their business was prosecuting crimes
whoever committed them, and that offering to excuse a crime in exchange for a guilty plea is
.kind of a crime.
Man, they have to clean house at the FBI. And there probably are several other
organizations that need it, too. Not the political culling based on ideology that was a
feature of the Bush White House, but the crowd that's in now just cannot be allowed to get
off with nothing.
Greetings Mark and all, I am a new arrival as Jen suggested the company is fine here for
barflies to ponder the world. Can I surmise that if Flynn and son were the FBI targets for
nefarious business dealings then surely Biden and son fall in to that same category. After
all Biden and son filched millions after arranging a USA loan of $1Billion to Ukraine and
then did it again after the IMF loaned a few million more. Carpetbagging and its modern day
practice is a crime in the USA last I looked.
If that conspicuous bias isn't enough cause to dismember the FBI then consider the Uranium
One deal that Hillary Clinton and family set up or perhaps the Debbie Wasserman Shultz
fostering the Awan family spy and blackmail ring.
Good day, Uncle, and welcome! For some reason I can't fathom, the Democrats seem to own or
control all the 'respectable' media in the USA. FOX News is an exception, and has been a
mouthpiece for the Republicans since its inception. But the Democrats control the New York
Times and the Washington Post, which together represent the bulk of American public feeling
to foreigners, and probably to the domestic audience as well. They are extremely active on
conflicts between the two parties, ensuring the Democratic perspective gets put forward in
calm, reasonable why-wouldn't-a-sensible-person-think-this-way manner. At the same time they
cast horrific aspersions at the Republicans. Not that either are much good; but the news
coverage is very one-sided – the position of the Democrats on the sexual-assault furor
over the Kavanaugh appointment compared with their wait-and-see attitude to very similar
accusations against Biden is a classic example.
I don't think its the Democrats that control the NYT &WP, so much as plutocrats.
They're also the ones who fund both the Democrats & the Republicans. The only significant
difference between the parties is largely in the arena of the social "culture war" issues.
But on the issues plutocrats care about, like economic policy & foreign policy, the
differences are shades of grey, rather than actual distinctions.
Just remember the coverage of both papers in the run up to George W Shrub's catastrophic
Iraq war. They're stenographers, not journalists.
That may well be true, but the NYT and WP historically champion the Democrats, endorse the
Democratic candidate for president, and pander to Democratic issues and projects. The Wall
Street Journal is the traditional Republican print outlet, and there might be others but I
don't know them. CNN is overwhelmingly and weepily Democratic in its content – Wolf
Blitzer's eyes nearly roll back in his head with ecstasy whenever he mentions Saint Hillary
– while FOX News is Repubican to the bone and openly contemptuous of liberals. It could
certainly be, on reflection probably is, that the same cabal of corporatists control them
all, and a fine joke they must think it. And I certainly and emphatically agree there is
almost no difference between the parties in execution of external policy.
"... Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news? ..."
After a prescient 2017 tip from inside the FBI, a slow drip of revelations exposed the
deep problems with the Flynn prosecution.
####
All at the link.
I should add that the author, seasoned investigative reporter John Soloman, wrote much of
this over at TheHill.com and was targeted for review over his clearly labelled 'opinion'
pieces reporting on the Bidens in the Ukraine. The Hill's conclusion is piss weak and accuses
him of what just about every other journalist in the US does and reads in particular of
holding him up to a much higher standard than others. As you will see from his twatter bio,
he's worked for AP, Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Hill. Some things you are
just not supposed to investigate, let alone report.
At an absolute minimum, the FBI officials involved – except those who did their jobs
properly and stated their judgments at the outset that there was no evidence Flynn was not
telling the truth, or believed he was – should be fired and their pensions, if
applicable, rescinded.
Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections
to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have
to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news?
Ex-F.B.I.
Official Is Said to Undercut Justice Dept. Effort to Drop Flynn Case
Prosecutors questioned a former F.B.I. official whose
notes were used to buttress their motion to dismiss the charge against the president's first national security
adviser.
Bill Priestap, a former top F.B.I. official,
played a central role in the agency's 2016 investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere in the
presidential election.
Credit...
Alex
Wong/Getty Images
Published May 13,
2020
Updated May
14, 2020,
7:48 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- A key former F.B.I. official cast doubt on the Justice
Department's case for dropping a criminal charge against President Trump's former national security adviser
Michael
T. Flynn
during an interview with investigators last week, according to people familiar with the
investigation.
Department officials reviewing the Flynn case interviewed Bill Priestap, the
former head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, two days before making their extraordinary request to drop the
case to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. They did not tell Judge Sullivan about Mr. Priestap's interview. A Justice
Department official said that they were in the process of writing up a report on the interview and that it
would soon be filed with the court.
The department's motion referred to notes that Mr. Priestap wrote around the
bureau's 2017 questioning of Mr. Flynn, who later pleaded guilty to lying to investigators during that
interview. His lawyers said Mr. Priestap's notes -- recently uncovered during a review of the case --
suggested that the F.B.I. was trying to entrap Mr. Flynn, and Attorney General William P. Barr
said investigators were trying
to "lay a perjury trap."
That interpretation was wrong, Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing
the case. He said that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that
he knew of no effort to set him up. Media reports about his notes misconstrued them, he said, according to
the people familiar with the investigation.
The department's decision to exclude mention of Mr. Priestap's interview in
the motion could trouble Judge Sullivan, who
signaled late on Tuesday
that he was skeptical of the department's arguments.
Mr. Priestap and the Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Priestap
told investigators that he did not remember the circumstances surrounding the notes that he took, and that
he was giving them his interpretation of the notes as he read them now, according to a person familiar with
his interview.
Listen to 'The Daily': The Saga of Michael Flynn
The U.S. dropped its criminal case against President Trump's first national security
adviser. It was the latest reversal in a case full of them.
Former prosecutors and defense lawyers called the department's position
hypocritical and troubling.
"If it is accurate that the F.B.I. official provided context around those
notes, which is materially different from what they suggest, this could be a game changer in terms of how
the court views the motivations behind the request to dismiss the case," said Edward Y. Kim, a former
federal prosecutor in Manhattan.
The department's decision to drop the Flynn case was a stunning reversal,
widely regarded as part of an effort by Mr. Barr to
undermine the Russia investigation
. The prosecutor who led the case, Brandon L. Van Grack, withdrew from
it, and only the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, Timothy Shea, a longtime adviser to Mr. Barr, signed
the motion.
Both Mr. Van Grack and Jocelyn Ballantine, another prosecutor on the case,
were upset with Mr. Barr's decision to drop the charge and his overall handling of the Flynn review,
according to people familiar with their thinking.
Mr. Barr, who has long said that he had misgivings about the decision to
prosecute Mr. Flynn, asked the top federal prosecutor in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, earlier this year to scrub
the case for any mistakes or improprieties.
Mr. Priestap's notes were among the documents that Mr. Jensen found. The
prosecutors already on the case, Mr. Jensen's team and the F.B.I. disagreed about whether they were
exculpatory and should be given to Mr. Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell. Mr. Jensen prevailed and gave them to
Ms. Powell, who declared that they would exonerate her client, people familiar with the events said.
Mr. Priestap played a central role in the F.B.I. investigation into Russian
interference in the presidential election and was involved in high-level discussions about whether to
question Mr. Flynn, whose phone calls to the Russian ambassador at the time, Sergey I. Kislyak, had aroused
investigators' suspicions.
Mr. Jensen and Ms. Ballantine, herself a veteran prosecutor, interviewed Mr.
Priestap along with another prosecutor, Sayler Fleming, and an F.B.I. agent from St. Louis who was there to
memorialize the encounter.
Justice Department investigators spoke with Mr. Priestap while they were
embroiled in a debate that began last month about whether to drop the Flynn case.
Mr. Jensen and officials in Mr. Shea's office pushed to give Mr. Flynn's
lawyers copies of the notes and other documents they had recently found. Mr. Van Grack and Dana Boente, the
F.B.I. general counsel, argued against disclosing them.
Eventually the F.B.I. agreed to release the documents because they contained
no classified or sensitive material, even though they believed they were not required to share them with the
defense, according to an email from lawyers in Mr. Boente's office on April 23.
By the beginning of May, Mr. Jensen recommended to Mr. Barr that the charge
be dropped, and the team began to draft the motion to dismiss it.
Mr. Van Grack and Ms. Ballantine, the prosecutors on the case, acknowledged
the facts but vociferously disagreed with Mr. Jensen's legal argument that Mr. Flynn's lies were immaterial
to the larger investigation into Russian election interference, according to department lawyers familiar
with their conversations.
As the lawyers digested the interview with Mr. Priestap, some prosecutors
expressed concern that they were moving too fast. But other officials pointed out that in less than a week
the department was due to respond to Mr. Flynn's motion to dismiss the case, and argued against proceeding
in that matter if they were about to drop the entire case.
Mr. Jensen agreed, as did Mr. Barr, and they filed their request. Even though
they knew it was coming, some prosecutors on the case expressed shock, associates said.
Mr. Flynn's case grew out of phone calls he made to Mr. Kislyak in the final
days of 2016, asking that Moscow refrain from retaliating after the Obama administration imposed sanctions
on Russia as punishment for interfering in the election. The conversations were captured on routine wiretaps
of Mr. Kislyak and prompted concern among the F.B.I. agents investigating Mr. Flynn once they learned of
them.
Then the incoming vice president, Mike Pence, publicly denied that Mr. Flynn
had asked Russia to hold off on sanctions. Agents began to suspect that Mr. Flynn was lying to other Trump
officials about the phone calls and were concerned that he was a blackmail risk because Russia knew the
truth of the calls.
Mr. Priestap's notes, taken hours before agents questioned Mr. Flynn on Jan.
24, 2017, showed that F.B.I. officials were debating how to proceed and trying to determine the objective of
questioning Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Priestap wrote: "What's our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie,
so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Mr. Priestap also mentioned the risks of an interview, adding,
"Protect our institution by not playing games" and "If we're seen playing games, WH will be furious."
Those notes reflected Mr. Priestap's own thoughts before meeting with
F.B.I. leadership to discuss how to question Mr. Flynn, the people said. A footnote in Mr. Shea's motion
included a reference to Mr. Priestap's ruminations. The motion described them as "talking points."
The notes also showed that the F.B.I. softened its interview strategy with
Mr. Flynn. Officials decided that agents would be allowed to read back portions of the highly classified
phone call transcripts to refresh Mr. Flynn's memory. F.B.I. investigators felt at the time it was important
to figure out whether Mr. Flynn would tell the truth in an interview.
Though Mr. Flynn was told ahead of time about the interview, the F.B.I.
director at the time, James B. Comey, unilaterally decided to go forward with it, angering Justice
Department officials who said the bureau should have coordinated closely with them and notified the White
House Counsel's Office.
Two agents went to the White House to question Mr. Flynn. He lied repeatedly,
and prosecutors have said that agents gave him "multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by
revisiting key questions."
Mr. Flynn later agreed to plead guilty, entering a plea twice before he later
reversed himself, hiring new lawyers and asking Judge Sullivan to allow him to withdraw it.
After the notes and other documents were made public, Ms. Powell seized on
them to declare that they cast doubt on the F.B.I.'s decision to question Mr. Flynn and to charge him with
lying. She accused the bureau of framing her client.
Mr. Shea also argued that the F.B.I. had no legitimate reason to
interview Mr. Flynn. He said that the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn had
essentially ended and agents had insufficient reason to keep it open and were trying to entrap him.
The interview with Mr. Flynn "seems to have been undertaken only to
elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn," Mr. Shea wrote.
Mr. Barr has called Mr. Flynn's conversations with Mr. Kislyak "
laudable
"
and said that his lies were immaterial to the Russia investigation, rejecting the view of the prosecutors
who had said that
Mr. Flynn hurt the inquiry
by misleading the F.B.I. agents. Judge Sullivan has also said the lies were
material.
"... he recognizes he is sitting on a volcano, partly of his own making because of decisions he made; and those of Judge Rudy Contreras, the man who was on the bench when Flynn plead to the false charges, circa Dec. 1, 2017. ..."
"... Neither Contreras, nor Flynn's Covington lawyers, prior this plea, demanded the DOJ produce original FBI 302s -- of the Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn -- to show the concrete substance, that is, actual evidence, that would purportedly show the general lied. ..."
"... The DOJ never produced this. Ever. Sullivan, he never asked nor demanded nor got to read those original 302s either, even though he has been sitting on this case since Dec. 7, 2017. ..."
"... The only rational reason, I think, Sullivan said he needs "help" -- before consummating the DOJ's request to end this matter – is simple. Sullivan knows he is sitting on a volcano, and he can't take the heat. ..."
"... Thus, he might be creating conditions for a last hurrah of nonsense from the enemies of justice who are the enemies of Flynn, who want to file amica with the court. Put another way, the judge is inviting the very circus he claim to want to avoid, in his Minute Order. ..."
Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan needs "help."
His words, not mine. Although amica, or amicus briefs can be routine in civil cases, in a criminal case, it is
a prosecutor's duty to decide things as basic as whether to prosecute a case. But in the Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn matter, Sullivan says he now needs outside help.
The need, the judge says, came following the DOJ decision to end prosecution of the
general, having determined there was no crime; the heretofore prosecution of him was a
phantom of the opera.
Sullivan now wants an encore. What might that be? Pirates of Penzance? Sullivan Flies Over
the Cuckoo's Nest?
In a recent order the judge said he will invite outside parties -- outside of the DOJ --
to provide this judge "unique information or perspective that can help the court." The
absurdity of Sullivan notwithstanding, it could be: he recognizes he is sitting on a
volcano, partly of his own making because of decisions he made; and those of Judge Rudy
Contreras, the man who was on the bench when Flynn plead to the false charges, circa Dec. 1,
2017.
Neither Contreras, nor Flynn's Covington lawyers, prior this plea, demanded the DOJ
produce original FBI 302s -- of the Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn -- to show the
concrete substance, that is, actual evidence, that would purportedly show the general
lied.
The DOJ never produced this. Ever. Sullivan, he never asked nor demanded nor got to
read those original 302s either, even though he has been sitting on this case since Dec. 7,
2017.
After a year of sitting on the case, Flynn said he was ready to be sentenced: the
prosecutors had said they were fine with no jail time for him.
During this Dec. 18, 2018 hearing, Sullivan Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. [If you have not,
read transcript of this hearing, it's at least a half-hour read.] Sullivan told Flynn he
could face 15 years in jail, implied he committed treason, was a traitor to his country, blah
blah blah.
The prosecutor at the time, Brandon Van Grack, told the Pirate of Penzance that more
assistance of Flynn was needed for the bogus Mueller investigation. Sullivan [Gilbert was not
in the courtroom] then allowed Flynn's sentencing hearing to be continued, so long as Mueller
submitted monthly progress reports to ascertain the general was cooperating with the special
counsel office's "investigation" of nonexistent "crimes" against who knows what at that
point. To recap: Sullivan threatened Flynn with 15 years in prison; Flynn withdrew his
willingness to be sentenced at that time; Van Grack out of nowhere said the general needed to
cooperate some more with Mueller.
Had Sullivan not gone rouge at this hearing; had he demanded and gotten the original 302s,
I would give more credence to what I'll say next.
The only rational reason, I think, Sullivan said he needs "help" -- before
consummating the DOJ's request to end this matter – is simple. Sullivan knows he is
sitting on a volcano, and he can't take the heat.
Thus, he might be creating conditions for a last hurrah of nonsense from the enemies
of justice who are the enemies of Flynn, who want to file amica with the court. Put another
way, the judge is inviting the very circus he claim to want to avoid, in his Minute
Order.
Reason I'm not necessarily opposed to this circus is practical: more sunshine can be
brought to this prosecution, this malicious and political perecution of Flynn –
sunshine, via the DOJ release document after document that just piles onto the record
DOJ/FBI/CIA lawlessness that was directed against and targeted Flynn. And perhaps other
delicious nuggets, too.
When the smoke clears, the fat lady finally sings, Sullivan can say or claim he did
everything to give everyone their say, blah blah blah, and hope like hell everyone forgets
this Pirate's dereliction of duty, as a judge with a lifetime appointment.
Perhaps, should this show go on, we might discover why Contreras mysteriously recused
himself right after the Flynn pleas.
Perhaps we will read all of the Covington law firm Eric Holder and Michael Chertoff
emails, and what they were saying about Flynn, the good, the bad, the ugly.
And, since Barry decided to directly and publicly insert himself in this fiasco last week,
with his remark about Flynn and "perjury," who knows what other documents will be filed on
the docket. [Obama's pre meditated use of "perjury" when he knows it was not about that,
indicates just how sinister his public involvement now is.]
I would like to see all of Sullivan's communications, work related and private, involving
the Flynn case.
Please file all of them on the docket, Judge Sullivan, un-redacted, you who opened this
can of worms. [So we can see if you, by your own "standards" might be a "security threat" or
"sold out your country," etc.]
Sullivan didn't start this fire; he did pour gasoline on it.
". . . .Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. . . ."[Epistle
to the Galatians]
Sir;
What was Flynn's attitude towards the "Holy Land" at that time? Was he a threat to the Judea
and Samaria clique?
I can't help but compare the treatment of Flynn to the treatment of Petraeus.
There is one hidden benefit leaving Flynn still "twisting slowly, slowly in the wind" for
making a "false statement during a federal investigation".
His treatment at the hands of his own government will certainly resonate with those we now
find on the unmasking list. They will soon be visited by federal investigators who will be
asking them a lot of questions - no lying guys and gals. Look what could happen to you
too.
I could use an explanation of the IMPLICATIONS of this revelation. Is it possible there's
nothing nefarious about someone who, for example, received a copy of Obama's daily briefing
in which Flynn may have been alluded to and therefore that person requested unmasking for a
fuller understanding of the matter? It's been reported that Obama exponentially expanded the
numbers of people who were privy to his daily briefing.
Does the fact that the FBI was undertaking a counterintelligence investigation of Gen.
Flynn at the time, wrong/unethical as that may have been, give cover?
Is there any legal jeopardy facing those whose names are on the list? If so, what?
And President Trump clearly won't let it go (and why should he after three years of utter
bullshit)...
If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the
biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President
Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC , just do it.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14,
2020
We won't be holding our collective breaths however, but it would be deliciously ironic if
the president who claimed "no scandals" during his presidency, was brought down after leaving
office by the biggest scandal in US history.
"... One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion. ..."
"... Farkas, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia, was widely quoted when she said on MSNBC in 2017 that she feared that evidence she knew about would be destroyed by the Trump Administration. She stated: ..."
"... ...was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy . . . the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. ..."
"... 'You also didn't know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, did you?' Gowdy later asked, getting to the point. ..."
The long-delayed release of testimony from the House Intelligence Committee has proved
embarrassing for a variety of former Obama officials who have been extensively quoted on the
allegedly strong evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians. Figures like
James Clapper, who is a CNN expert, long indicated hat the evidence from the Obama
Administration was strong and alarming. However, in testimony, Clapper denied seeing any
such evidence .
One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama
Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence
that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas
repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion.
Farkas, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia,
was widely quoted when she said on MSNBC in 2017 that she feared that evidence she knew about
would be destroyed by the Trump Administration. She stated:
...was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill Get as much
information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves
the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with
the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy . . . the Trump
folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff's
dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning
we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not
enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.
MSNBC never seriously questioned the statements despite the fact that Farkas left
the Obama Administration in 2015 before any such investigation could have occurred. As we have
seen before, the factual and legal basis for such statements are largely immaterial in the age
of echo journalism. The statement fit the narrative even if it lacked any plausible basis.
Not surprisingly, the House Intelligence Committee was eager to have Farkas share all that
she stated she "knew about ["the Trump folks"], their staff, the Trump's staff's dealing with
Russian" and wanted to get "into the open." After all, she told MSNBC that "I knew that there
was more."
She was finally put under oath in the closed classified sessions and there was nothing but
classified crickets. Farkas was repeatedly asked to share that information that electrified the
MSNBC hosts and audience. She repeatedly denied any such knowledge, telling then Rep. Trey
Gowdy (R, S.C.), "I didn't know anything."
Gowdy noted that Farkas left the Obama administration in 2015 and asked "Then how did you
know?" She repeated again "I didn't know anything."
Gowdy then asked "Well, then why would you say, we knew?"
He also asked:
'You also didn't know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia,
did you?' Gowdy later asked, getting to the point.
"I didn't," Farkas responded.
MSNBC has said nothing about its prior headline story being untrue. Indeed, the media has
barely acknowledged that the new documents reinforce that there was never any evidence of
collusion and ultimately the allegations were rejected by the Special Counsel, Congress, and
inspectors general.
'fter I left the Obama administration, I campaigned to help elect Secretary Clinton as our
next President. When Russians interfered in that election, I was among the first to sound the
alarm and urge Congress to take action. And I haven't let up since then.
She was indeed one of the first but it proved to be a false alarm based on
nonexistent knowledge. Does that matter anymore?
Released today is a list from the National Security Agency of officials who asked -- between
8 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 -- that a name be unmasked in intercepted communications,
and the name turned out to be Gen. Michael Flynn--
Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, the Director of the NSA, included the list with a short memo to
Richard Grenell, the Acting Director of National Intelligence, who declassified the list and
then routed it today to U.S. Senators Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson.
I think the senators should have asked for a wider time frame.
Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that
they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff
spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own
committee gathered contrary evidence.
"... it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years. ..."
"... What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization ..."
"... And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all the rest of it. ..."
"... Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is. ..."
"... Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. ..."
"... And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility, corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn, the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to something beyond sinister. ..."
"... You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore. ..."
From the beginning of the story RussiaGate was always about Barack Obama . I didn't always see it that way, certainly. My seething
hatred for all things Hillary Clinton is a powerful blind spot I admit to freely.
But, it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the
only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years.
We've known this for a couple of years now but there were a seemingly endless series of distractions put in place to obfuscate
the truth...
Donald Trump was not a Russian agent.
What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy
on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years.
It was de rigeur by the time the election cycle ramped up in 2016. The timing of events is during that time period paints a very
damning picture.
This article from Zerohedge by way of
Conservative Treehouse lays out the timing, the activities and the shifts in the narrative that implicate Obama beyond any doubt.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the
database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization. Thus
begins the first discovery of a much bigger background story.
And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the
NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all
the rest of it.
The details are all there for anyone with eyes willing to see, the question is whether anyone deep in the throes of Trump Derangement
Syndrome will take their eyes off the shadow play in front of them long enough to look.
I'm not holding my breath.
Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services
to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking
U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is.
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
May 12, 2020
... ... ...
These people obviously missed the key point about Goebbels' Big Lie theory of propaganda. For it to work there has to be a nugget
of truth to wrap the lie in before you can repeat it endlessly to make it real. And that's why RussiaGate is dead. Long live ObamaGate.
Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts
of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee.
None of them were willing to testify under oath, and be guilty of perjury, to the effect that Trump was colluding with the Russians.
But, they'd say it on TV, Twitter and anywhere else they could to attack Trump with patent nonsense.
Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will
roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. Some of them will fall on their sword for Obama.
But I don't think Trump will be satisfied with that. He has to know that Obama is the key to truly draining the Swamp if that
is, in fact, his goal. Because if he doesn't attack Obama now, Obama will be formidable in October. Both men are fighting for their
lives at this point.
Trump was supposed to roll over and play nice. But Pat Buchanan rightly had him pegged at the beginning of this back in January
of 2017, saying that Trump wasn't like Nixon, he wouldn't walk away to protect the office of the Presidency. He would fight to the
bitter end because that's who he is.
And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility,
corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering
classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn,
the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to
something beyond sinister.
You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a
New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian
dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore.
The day just keeps getting better and better. The left is now moving the goalposts,
parroting the new talking point that: 'sure, Biden unmasked Flynn - but that just goes to show
how concerned everyone was about him.'
Biden spokesman Andrew Bates, meanwhile, took to Twitter to insult journalist Catherine
Herridge as a "partisan, rightwing hack who is a regular conduit for conservative media
manipulation..." for revealing Biden's involvement in unmasking Flynn. He then deleted the
tweet and issued a statement accusing President Trump of "dishonest media manipulation to
distract from his response to the worst public health crisis in 100 years," adding that the
documents "simply indicate the breadth and depth of concern across the American government --
including among career officials -- over intelligence reports of Michael Flynn's attempts to
undermine ongoing American national security policy through discussions with Russian officials
or other foreign representatives."
. @JoeBiden
camp responds to "unmasking" list: "These documents simply indicate the breadth and depth of
concern across the American govt...over intelligence reports of Michael Flynn's attempts to
undermine ongoing American national security policy" via @AndrewBatesNC
pic.twitter.com/bNl9Fp5JH1
Somehow their response failed to include why Biden tried to lie on Tuesday about knowledge
of the Flynn investigation. * * *
Update (1635ET): It did not take long for the liberalati to try and distract from what just
dropped and to turn their cognitive dissonance up to '11'. None other than Ben Rhodes quickly
ranted:
"The unconfirmed, acting DNI using his position to criminalize routine intelligence work
to help re-elect the president and obscure Russian intervention in our democracy would
normally be the scandal here..."
To which The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel rebuked rather eloquently...
"This is the best they've got--to complain about transparency. "
But perhaps most notable is the fact the unmasking involved here occurred BEFORE the Kislyak
call that was supposedly triggered the move against Flynn et al.
Another riddle we are sure Messrs. Biden et al. will quickly mumble-splain.
* * *
A list of Obama administration officials who participated in the 'unmasking' of former
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been released by Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck
Grassley. The names include former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan,
former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Vice President Joe Biden
.
SCOOP @CBSNews obtains @RichardGrenell
notification to congress declassified "unmasking list" Flynn between late 2016 and January
2017 - Read 3 pages provided by NSA here pic.twitter.com/NozVpQlRn2
-- Catherine Herridge
(@CBS_Herridge) May 13,
2020
#FLYNN unmasking
docs include these key details "Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original
report and the unmasking was approved through NSA's standard process..While the principals
are identified below, we cannot confirm they saw the unmasked information." pic.twitter.com/vz9W3uHPSz
-- Catherine
Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May 13,
2020
The revelation comes after Biden was caught trying to lie about his knowledge of the Flynn
investigation during a Tuesday morning interview - changing course after host George
Stephanopoulos pointed out his documented attendance at a
January 5 Oval Office meeting in which key members of the Obama administration discussed
the ongoing investigation into Flynn's intercepted contacts with the Russian ambassador.
Notably, Obama asked Comey to conceal the FBI's investigation from the incoming
administration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/oIaqV0CtOBY
Declassified documents reveal V.P. Biden ordered the unmasking of General Flynn's private
conversation.
Anyone think that Biden might have abused his power to go after a political opponent...
The Senate must immediately hold hearings on this! Clapper, Comey, Brennan and even Biden
owe it to the American people. They should testify under oath. What did the former president
know?
As we have previously noted, "unmasking" is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen
or lawful resident is revealed in classified intelligence reports. Normally, when government
officials receive intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect
their privacy. But officials can request that names, listed as "U.S. Person 1," for example, be
unmasked internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence.
Unmasking is justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the
U.S. intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak
classified information generated by the process .
Last week, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell visited the Justice
Department with the list of unmaskers, which the DOJ effectively said was up to him to release,
according to a Fox News report.
After Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice was outed as the ringleader of an unmasking
campaign, the Wall Street Journal reported that she wasn't the only administration official to
participate in Flynn's unmasking .
The new disclosure comes after the FBI was revealed to have attempted to ensnare Flynn in a
perjury trap , despite the agency's own DC field office suggesting that the case be closed.
Last week,
remarks by Obama were leaked to Yahoo News that were highly critical about Trump and his
administration, seeming to break a convention in US politics that former occupants of the White
House rarely criticize their successors.
Speaking to alumni of his administration, Obama said he was worried about the "rule of law",
in light of the justice department's decision to drop its case against the former national
security adviser Michael Flynn. That's the issue at the heart of Trump's attempts to gin up an
"Obamagate" scandal, which on Tuesday morning he again claimed "makes Watergate look small
time!"
Obama also said the response to the coronavirus pandemic had been "an absolute chaotic
disaster".
McConnell was
speaking to Trump's daughter-in-law Lara Trump in an online fundraiser on Monday night.
Asked about Obama "slamming" the administration for its response to the coronavirus
outbreak, he said: "I think President Obama should have kept his mouth shut.
"You know, we know he doesn't like much this administration is doing. That's understandable.
But I think it's a little bit classless frankly to critique an administration that comes after
you."
He added: "You had your shot. You were there for eight years. I think the tradition that the
Bushes set up of not critiquing the president who comes after you is a good tradition."
There is a tradition of former presidents not commenting on or attacking their successors in
the Oval Office, but Trump is not part of the informal club which currently includes Obama,
George W Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and he has regularly attacked those who went
before him.
Plus, Obama's views of Trump are pretty well known, if usually by indirect routes and leaks
to the press. For example, in a Hulu documentary about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign against
Trump, the Virginia senator Tim Kaine is seen to say the then president thinks Trump is a
fascist.
In the remarks leaked to Yahoo News, Obama said he would be hitting the campaign trail for
Joe Biden this fall to help him try to unseat Trump and make him a one-term president. Biden
leads Trump in key swing states and national polling and McConnell is also presiding over a
Senate majority that now looks increasingly at risk as Republican popularity dips.
"... House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election . ..."
"... Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment. ..."
"... Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia claim made by Fleitz . ..."
"... Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election. ..."
Former CIA director John Brennan suppressed intelligence which
indicated that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because "she was a known quantity," vs. the
unpredictable Donald Trump, according to Fox News ' Ed Henry.
During a Tuesday night discussion with Tucker Carlson, Henry said that Brennan "also had
intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity,
she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin's team thought she was more malleable,
while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable."
Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin has fond memories of the time Bill Clinton
hung out at his 'private homestead' during the same trip where he collected a $500,000
payday for a speech at a Moscow bank, right before the Uranium One deal was approved.
And as
Breitbart 's Joel Pollak notes, Henry's claim backs up a similar
allegation by former National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz , who said on
April 22:
House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation
reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan
suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more
predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election .
Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet
intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted
Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also
objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.
Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia
claim made by Fleitz .
Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama
administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the
Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI
knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before
they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.
And now, Brennan is a contributor on MSNBC. How fitting.
@JoaoAlfaiate
– You mean the Syria where US troops sent by Obama are being withdrawn by Trump.
– What Syrian oil has Trump stolen? None.
FYI:
– Obama was the first president in US history to be at war for every single day of his
eight year presidency.
– Obama approved military action in seven countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen as well as special operations on a smaller
scale all over the globe.
Why is former President Obama calling forth all his defensive resources now?
Why did former national security advisor Susan Rice write her CYA letter? Why have republicans in
congress not been willing to investigate the true origins of political surveillance? What is the
reason for so much anger, desperation and opposition from a variety of interests?
In a
single word in a single tweet tonight, President Trump explained it perfectly - with help from Fox
News' Tucker Carlson's detailed breakdown"
"OBAMAGATE!"
...
As around 2:15 in the clip above, Carlson explains that
then president of the United
States Barack Obama turned to the head of the FBI - the most powerful law enforcement official in
America, and said "Continue to secretly investigate my chief political rival so I can act against
him."
With the release of
recent
transcripts
and the
declassification
of material
from within the IG report, the Carter Page FISA and
Flynn
documents
showing FBI activity, there is a common misconception about
why
the
intelligence apparatus began investigating the Trump campaign in the first place. Why was Donald
Trump considered a threat?
In this outline we hope to provide some fully cited deep source material that will
explain the origin; and specifically why those inside the Intelligence Community began targeting
Trump and using Confidential Human Sources against campaign officials.
During the time-frame of December 2015 through April 2016 the NSA database was being
exploited
by contractors
within the intelligence community doing unauthorized searches.
On March 9, 2016, oversight personnel doing a review of FBI system access were alerted to
thousands of unauthorized search queries of specific U.S. persons within the NSA database.
NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was made aware.
Subsequently NSA Director Rogers initiated a full compliance review of the system to identify
who was doing the searches; & what searches were being conducted.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI
contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search
queries were being done without authorization. Thus begins the first discovery of a much bigger
background story.
When you compile the timeline with the people involved; and the specific wording of the
resulting review, which was then delivered to the FISA court; and overlay the activity that was
taking place in the GOP primary; what we discover is a process where the metadata collected by the
NSA was being searched for political opposition research and surveillance.
Additionally, tens-of-thousands of searches were identified by the FISA court as likely
extending much further than the compliance review period: "
while the government reports it is
unable to provide a reliable estimate of the non compliant queries since 2012, there is no apparent
reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high error
rate"
.
In short, during the Obama administration the NSA database was continually used to conduct
surveillance. This is the critical point that leads to understanding the origin of "Spygate", as it
unfolded in the Spring and Summer of 2016.
It was the discovery of the database exploitation and the removal of access as a surveillance
tool that created their initial problem.
Here's how we can tell
.
Initially in December 2015 there were 17 GOP candidates and all needed to be researched.
However, when Donald Trump won New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina the field was
significantly whittled. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson remained.
On Super Tuesday,
March
2, 2016
, Donald Trump won seven states (VT, AR, VA, GA, AL, TN, MA) it was then clear that
Trump was the GOP frontrunner with momentum to become the presumptive nominee. On
March
5th
, Trump won Kentucky and Louisiana; and on
March
8th
Trump won Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii.
The next day,
March 9th
, NSA security alerts warned internal oversight
personnel that something sketchy was going on.
This timing is not coincidental. As FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer later wrote in her report, "
many
of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the
same identifiers
over
different date ranges
." Put another way: attributes belonging to a specific individual(s) were
being targeted and queried, unlawfully. Given what was later discovered, it seems obvious the
primary search target, over
multiple date ranges
, was Donald Trump.
There were tens-of-thousands of unauthorized search queries; and as Judge Collyer stated in her
report, there is no reason to believe the
85% non compliant rate
was any different from
the abuse of the NSA database going back to 2012.
As you will see below the NSA database was how political surveillance was being conducted during
Obama's second term in office. However, when the system was flagged, and when NSA Director Mike
Rogers shut down "contractor" access to the system, the system users needed to develop another way
to get access.
Mike Rogers shuts down access on April 18, 2016. On April 19, 2016, Fusion-GPS founder Glenn
Simpson's wife, Mary Jacoby visits the White House. Immediately thereafter, the DNC and Clinton
campaign contract Fusion GPS who then hire Christopher Steele.
Knowing it was federal "contractors", outside government with access to the system, doing the
unauthorized searches, the question becomes:
who were the contractors?
The possibilities are quite vast. Essentially anyone the FBI or intelligence apparatus was using
could have participated. Crowdstrike was a known
FBI
contractor
; they were also
contracted
by the DNC
. Shawn Henry was the former head of the FBI office in DC and is now the head of
Crowdstrike; a
rather
dubious contractor
for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic
company. James Comey's special friend Daniel Richman was an unpaid FBI "special employee"
with
security access
to the database. Nellie Ohr began working for Fusion-GPS on the Trump project
in
November 2015
and she was a
CIA
contractor
; and it's entirely likely Glenn Simpson or people within his Fusion-GPS network were
also contractors for the intelligence community.
Remember the Sharyl Attkisson computer intrusions? It's all part of this same network; Attkisson
even names Shawn Henry
as
a defendant
in her ongoing lawsuit.
All of the aforementioned names, and so many more, held a political agenda in 2016.
It seems likely if the NSA flags were never triggered then the contracted system users would
have continued exploiting the NSA database for political opposition research; which would then be
funneled to the Clinton team. However, once the unauthorized flags were triggered, the system users
(including those inside the official intelligence apparatus) needed to find another back-door to
continue Again, the timing becomes transparent.
Immediately after NSA flags were raised March 9th; the same intelligence agencies began using
confidential human sources (CHS's) to run into the Trump campaign. By activating intelligence
assets like
Joseph
Mifsud
and
Stefan
Halper
the IC (CIA, FBI) and system users had now created an authorized way to continue the
same political surveillance operations.
When Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort on
March
28, 2016
, it was a perfect scenario for those doing the surveillance. Manafort was a
known
entity
to the FBI and was previously under investigation. Paul Manafort's entry into the Trump
orbit was perfect for Glenn Simpson to sell his prior research on Manafort as a Trump-Russia
collusion script two weeks later.
The shift from "unauthorized exploitation of the NSA database" to legally authorized
exploitation of the NSA database was now in place. This was how they continued the political
surveillance. This is the confluence of events that originated "spygate", or what officially
blossomed into the FBI investigation known as "Crossfire Hurricane" on July 31.
If the NSA flags were never raised; and if Director Rogers had never initiated the compliance
audit; and if the political contractors were never blocked from access to the database; they would
never have needed to create a legal back-door, a justification to retain the surveillance. The
political operatives/contractors would have just continued the targeted metadata exploitation.
Once they created the surveillance door, Fusion-GPS was then needed to get the FBI known
commodity of Chris Steele activated as a pipeline. Into that pipeline all system users pushed
opposition research. However, one mistake from the NSA database extraction during an "about" query
shows up as a New Yorker named Michael Cohen in Prague.
That misinterpreted data from a FISA-702 "about query" is then piped to Steele and turns up
inside the dossier; it was the wrong Michael Cohen. It wasn't Trump's lawyer, it was an art dealer
from New York City with the same name; the same "identifier".
A DEEP DIVE – How Did It Work?
Start by reviewing the established record from the
99-page
FISC opinion
rendered by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer on April 26, 2017. Review the details
within the FISC opinion.
I would strongly urge everyone to read the
FISC
report
(full pdf below) because Judge Collyer outlines how the DOJ, which includes the FBI, had
an "institutional lack of candor" in responses to the FISA court. In essence, the Obama
administration was continually lying to the FISA court about their activity, and the rate of fourth
amendment violations for illegal searches and seizures of U.S. persons' private information for
multiple years.
Unfortunately, due to intelligence terminology Judge Collyer's brief and ruling is not an easy
read for anyone unfamiliar with the FISA processes. That complexity also helps the media avoid
discussing it; and as a result most Americans have no idea the scale and scope of the Obama-era
surveillance issues. So we'll try to break down the language.
For the sake of brevity and common understanding CTH will highlight the most pertinent segments
showing just how systemic and troublesome the unlawful electronic surveillance was.
Early in 2016 NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
was
alerted
of a significant uptick in FISA-702(17) "About" queries using the FBI/NSA database that
holds all metadata records on every form of electronic communication.
The NSA compliance officer alerted Admiral Mike Rogers who then initiated a full compliance
audit on/around
March 9th, 2016
, for the period of November 1st, 2015, through May
1st, 2016.
While the audit was ongoing, due to the severity of the results that were identified, Admiral
Mike Rogers stopped anyone from using the 702(17) "about query" option, and went to the
extraordinary step of blocking all FBI contractor access to the database on
April 18, 2016
(keep
these dates in mind).
Here are some significant segments:
The key takeaway from these first paragraphs is how the search query results were exported from
the NSA database to users who were not authorized to see the material. The FBI contractors were
conducting searches and then removing, or 'exporting', the results. Later on, the FBI said all of
the exported material was deleted.
Searching the highly classified NSA database is essentially a function of filling out search
boxes to identify the user-initiated search parameter and get a return on the search result.
♦ FISA-702(16) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person ("702"); and the "16" is a
check box to initiate a search based on "
To and From
". Example, if you put in a
date and a phone number and check "16" as the search parameter the user will get the returns on
everything "To and From" that identified phone number for the specific date. Calls, texts,
contacts etc. Including results for the inbound and outbound contacts.
♦ FISA-702(17) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (702); and the "17" is a
check box to initiate a search based on everything "
About
" the search
qualifier. Example, if you put a date and a phone number and check "17" as the search parameter
the user will get the returns of everything
about
that phone. Calls, texts, contacts,
geolocation (or gps results), account information, user, service provider etc. As a result,
702(17) can actually be used to locate where the phone (and user) was located on a specific date
or sequentially over a specific period of time which is simply a matter of changing the date
parameters.
And that's just from a phone number.
Search an ip address "about" and read all data into that server; put in an email address and
gain everything about that account. Or use the electronic address of a GPS enabled vehicle (about)
and you can withdraw more electronic data and monitor in real time. Search a credit card number and
get everything about the account including what was purchased, where, when, etc. Search a bank
account number, get everything about transactions and electronic records etc. Just about anything
and everything can be electronically searched; everything has an electronic
'identifier'
.
The search parameter is only limited by the originating field filled out. Names, places,
numbers, addresses, etc. By using the "About" parameter there may be thousands or millions of
returns. Imagine if you put "@realdonaldtrump" into the search parameter? You could extract all
following accounts who interacted on Twitter, or Facebook etc. You are only limited by your
imagination and the scale of the electronic connectivity.
As you can see below, on March 9th, 2016, internal auditors noted the FBI was sharing "raw FISA
information, including
but not limited to
Section 702-acquired information".
In plain English the raw search returns were being shared with unknown entities without any
attempt to "minimize" or redact the results. The person(s) attached to the results were named and
obvious. There was no effort to hide their identity or protect their 4th amendment rights of
privacy; and database access was from the FBI network:
But what's the scale here? This is where the story really lies.
Read this next excerpt carefully.
The operators were searching "U.S Persons". The review of November 1, 2015, to May 1, 2016,
showed "eighty-five percent of those queries" were unlawful or "non compliant".
85% !!
"representing [redacted number]".
We can tell from the space of the redaction the number of searches were between 10,000 and
99,999 [six digits]. If we take the middle number of 50,000 – a non compliant rate of 85 percent
means 42,500 unlawful searches out of 50,000.
The [six digit] amount (more than 10,000, less than 99,999), and 85% error rate, was captured in
a six month period, November 2015 to April 2016.
Also notice this
very important
quote: "
many of these non-compliant queries
involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges
." This tells us the system
users were searching the same phone number, email address, electronic identifier, repeatedly over
different dates.
Specific person(s) were being tracked/monitored
.
Additionally, notice the last quote: "
while the government reports it is unable to provide a
reliable estimate of" these non lawful searches "since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe
the November 2015 [to] April 2016 coincided with an unusually high error rate"
.
That means the 85% unlawful FISA-702(16)(17) database abuse has likely been happening
since
2012
.
2012 is an important date in this database abuse because a network of specific interests is
assembled that also shows up in 2016/2017:
Who was 2012 FBI Director? Robert Mueller, who was selected by the FBI group to become
special prosecutor in 2017.
Who was Mueller' chief-of-staff? Aaron Zebley, who became one of the lead lawyers on the
Mueller special counsel.
Who was 2012 CIA Director? John Brennan (remember the ouster of Gen Petraeus)
Who was ODNI? James Clapper.
Remember, the NSA is inside the Pentagon (Defense Dept) command structure. Who was Defense
Secretary? Ash Carter
Who wanted NSA Director Mike Rogers fired in 2016? Brennan, Clapper and Carter.
And finally, who wrote and signed-off-on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and
then lied about the use of the Steele Dossier? The same John Brennan, and James Clapper along with
James Comey.
Tens of thousands of searches over four years (since 2012), and 85% of them are illegal. The
results were extracted for? . (I believe this is all political opposition use; and I'll explain why
momentarily.)
OK, that's the stunning scale; but who was involved?
Private contractors with access to "
raw FISA information that went well beyond what was
necessary to respond to FBI's requests
":
And as noted, the contractor access was finally halted on April 18th, 2016.
[Coincidentally (or likely not), the wife of Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby,
goes
to the White House
the very next day on April 19th, 2016.]
None of this is conspiracy theory.
All of this is laid out inside this 99-page opinion from FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer
who also noted that none of this FISA abuse was accidental in a
footnote
on page 87
: "
deliberate decisionmaking
":
This specific footnote, if declassified, could be a key. Note the phrase: "(
[redacted]
access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding entered into
[redacted])"
, this sentence has the potential to expose an internal decision; withheld from
congress and the FISA court by the Obama administration; that outlines a process for access and
distribution of surveillance data.
Note: "
no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016
", that is important.
Summary:
The FISA court identified and quantified tens-of-thousands of search queries of the NSA/FBI
database using the FISA-702(16)(17) system. The database was repeatedly used by persons with
contractor access who unlawfully searched and extracted the raw results without redacting the
information and shared it with an unknown number of entities.
The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation; and
we are not the only one to think that's what this system is being used for.
Back in 2017 when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was working to reauthorize
the FISA legislation, Nunes
wrote a letter
to ODNI Dan Coats
about this specific issue:
SIDEBAR
:
To solve the issue, well, actually attempt to ensure it never happened again, NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers eventually took away the "About" query option permanently in 2017. NSA Director
Rogers said the abuse was so inherent there was no way to stop it except to remove the process
completely. [
SEE
HERE
] Additionally, the NSA database operates as a function of the Pentagon, so the Trump
administration went one step further. On his last day as NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers -together
with ODNI Dan Coats- put U.S. cyber-command, the database steward, fully into the U.S. military as
a full combatant command. [
SEE
HERE
] Unfortunately it didn't work as shown by the 2018 FISC opinion rendered by FISC Judge
James Boasberg [
SEE
HERE
]
There is little doubt the FISA-702(16)(17) database system was used by Obama-era officials, from
2012 through April 2016, as a way to spy on their political opposition.
Quite simply there is no other intellectually honest explanation for the scale and volume of
database abuse that was taking place; and keep in mind these searches were all ruled to be
unlawful. Searches for repeated persons over a period time that were not authorized.
When we reconcile what was taking place and who was involved, then the actions of the exact same
principle participants take on a jaw-dropping amount of clarity.
All of the action taken by CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, ODNI Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter make sense. Including their effort to get NSA Director Mike Rogers
fired
.
Everything after March 9th, 2016, had a dual purpose: (1) done to cover up the weaponization of
the FISA database. [
Explained
Here
] Spygate, Russia-Gate, the Steele Dossier, and even the 2017
Intelligence
Community Assessment
(drawn from the dossier and signed by the above) were needed to create a
cover-story and protect themselves from discovery of this four year weaponization, political
surveillance and unlawful spying. Even the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel makes
sense; he was
FBI Director
when this
began. And (2) they needed to keep the surveillance going.
The beginning decision to use FISA(702) as a domestic surveillance and political spy mechanism
appears to have started in/around 2012. Perhaps sometime shortly before the 2012 presidential
election and before John Brennan left the White House and moved to CIA. However, there was an
earlier version of data assembly that preceded this effort.
Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term "
Secret
Research Project
" originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S.
Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why
Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the
FISA abuse:
The IRS sent the FBI "21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from
501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation." The transaction
occurred in October 2010 (
link
)
Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there's a pre-existing financial
crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the
surface in
early
spring 2012
.
The IRS scandal was never really about the IRS, it was always about the DOJ asking the IRS for
the database of information. That is why it was transparently a conflict when the same DOJ was
tasked with investigating the DOJ/IRS scandal. Additionally, Obama sent his chief-of-staff Jack Lew
to become Treasury Secretary; effectively placing an ally to oversee/cover-up any issues. As
Treasury Secretary Lew did just that.
Lesson Learned
– It would appear the Obama administration learned a lesson from
attempting to gather a large opposition research database operation inside a functioning
organization large enough to have some good people that might blow the whistle.
The timeline reflects a few months after realizing the "Secret Research Project" was now
worthless (June 2012), they focused more deliberately on a smaller network within the intelligence
apparatus and began weaponizing the FBI/NSA database. If our hunch is correct, that is what will be
visible in footnote #69:
How this all comes together in 2019/2020
Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 just to research Donald Trump. As shown in the evidence
provided by the FISC, the intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations.
The Obama administration already knew everything about the Trump campaign, and were monitoring
everything by exploiting the FISA database.
However, after the NSA alerts in/around March 9th, 2016, and particularly after the April 18th
shutdown of contractor access, the Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to create a legal
albeit
ex post facto
justification for the pre-existing surveillance and spy operations.
Fusion GPS gave them that justification in the Steele Dossier.
That's why the FBI small group, which later transitioned into the Mueller team, were so strongly
committed to and defending the
formation of the Steele Dossier
and its
dubious content.
The Steele Dossier, an outcome of the Fusion contract, contains three insurance policy purposes:
(1) the cover-story and justification for the pre-existing surveillance operation (protect Obama);
and (2) facilitate the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign (assist
Clinton); and (3) continue the operation with a special counsel (protect both).
An insurance policy would be needed. The Steele Dossier becomes the investigative virus the FBI
wanted inside the system. To get the virus into official status, they used the FISA application as
the delivery method and injected it into Carter Page. The FBI already knew Carter Page; essentially
Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {
Go
Deep
}.
The Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for
already existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion-GPS gave them that justification and
evidence for a FISA warrant with the Steele Dossier.
Ultimately that's why the Steele Dossier was so important; without it, the FBI would not have a
tool that Mueller needed to continue the investigation of President Trump. In essence by renewing
the FISA application, despite them knowing the underlying dossier was junk, the FBI was keeping the
surveillance gateway open for Team Mueller to exploit later on.
Additionally, without the Steele Dossier the DOJ and FBI are naked with their FISA-702 abuse as
outlined by John Ratcliffe.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wWsvZuiPyTI
Thankfully we know U.S. Attorney John Durham has talked to NSA Director Mike Rogers. In this
video Rogers explains how he was notified of what was happening and what he did after the
notification.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/CIJGH9RS2Fc
* * *
After tonight's tweets from President Trump, we should expect a full-court press from 'the
resistance' to distract from the cracks appearing in the former President's halo of
invincibility...
Flashback: Obama Ordered Comey To Conceal FBI Activities Right Before Trump Took
Office by Tyler
Durden Mon, 05/11/2020 - 14:05 With weeks to go before Donald Trump's inauguration, former
President Obama and VP Joe Biden were briefed by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI
Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper on matters related to the Russia investigation.
The January 5, 2017 meeting - also attended by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice,
has taken on a new significance in light of revelations of blatant misconduct by the FBI - and
the fact that the agency decided not to brief then-candidate Trump that a "friendly foreign
government" (Australia) advised them that Russia had offered a member of his campaign 'dirt' on
Hillary Clinton.
The rumored 'dirt' was in fact told to Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos by Joseph
Mifsud - a shadowy Maltese professor and self-described member of the Clinton Foundation.
Papadopoulos then told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who told Aussie intelligence,
which tipped off the FBI, which then launched Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Papadopoulos was
then surveiled by FBI spy Stefan Halper and his honeypot 'assistant' who went by the name "Azra
Turk" - while in 2017, Papadopoulos claims a spy handed him $10,000 in what he says goes "all
the way back to the DOJ, under the previous FBI under Comey, and even the Mueller team."
Meanwhile, the Trump DOJ decided last week to drop the case against former Director of
National Security, Mike Flynn, after it was revealed that the FBI was trying to ensnare him in
a 'perjury trap,' and that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to lying about his very legal
communications with the Russian Ambassador.
And let's not forget that the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier to spy on Trump
campaign associate Carter Page - and all of his contacts . Not only did the agency lie to the
FISA court to obtain the warrant, the DOJ knew the outlandish claims of Trump-Russia ties in
the Steele Dossier - funded by the Clinton Campaign - had no basis in reality.
And so, it's worth going back in time and reviewing that January 5, 2017 meeting which was
oddly documented by Susan Rice in an email to herself on January 20, 2017 - inauguration day,
which purports to summarize that meeting.
Rice later wrote an
email to herself on January 20, 2017 -- Trump's inauguration day and her last day in the
White House -- purporting to summarize that meeting. "On January 5, following a briefing by
IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election," Rice wrote,
"President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also
present."
According to Rice, "President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued
commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law
enforcement communities 'by the book.'" But then she added a significant caveat to that
"commitment": "From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants
to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is
any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia . "
The next portion of the email is classified, but Rice then noted that " the President
asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we
share classified information with the incoming team . Comey said he would."
At the time Obama suggested to Yates and Comey -- who were to keep their posts under the
Trump administration -- that the hold-overs consider withholding information from the
incoming administration, Obama knew that President Trump had named Flynn to serve as national
security advisor. Obama also knew there was an ongoing FBI investigation into Flynn premised
on Flynn being a Russian agent. -
The Federalist
And so, instead of briefing Trump on the Flynn investigation, Comey "privately briefed Trump
on the most salacious and absurd 'pee tape' allegation in the Christopher Steele dossier."
The fact that Comey did so leaked to the press, which used the briefing itself as
justification to report on, and publish the dossier .
What Comey didn't brief Trump on was the FBI's bullshit case against Michael Flynn -
accusing the incoming national security adviser of being a potential Russian agent. And
according to The Federalist , " Even after Obama had left office and Comey had a new
commander-in-chief to report to, Comey continued to follow Obama's prompt by withholding intel
from Trump. "
The Federalist also raises questions about former DNI James Clapper - specifically, whether
Clapper lied to Congress in July of 2017 when he said he never briefed Obama on the substance
of phone calls between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
According to the report, accounts from Comey and McCabe directly contradict Clapper's
claim.
" Did you ever brief President Obama on the phone call, the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls? "
asked Rep. Francis Rooney (R0FL) during Congressional testimony, to which Clapper replied: "
No. "
Except, Comey told Congress that Clapper directly briefed Obama ahead of the January 5
meeting.
"[A]ll the Intelligence Community was trying to figure out, so what is going on here?" Comey
testified. "And so we were all tasked to find out, do you have anything [redacted] that might
reflect on this. That turned up these calls [between Flynn and Kislyak] at the end of December,
beginning of January," Comey testified. "And then I briefed it to the Director of National
Intelligence, and Director Clapper asked me for copies [redacted], which I shared with him ...
In the first week of January, he briefed the President and the Vice President and then
President Obama's senior team about what we found and what we had seen to help them understand
why the Russians were reacting the way they did. "
And now to see if anything comes of the ongoing Durham investigation, or if Attorney General
Bill Barr will simply tie a bow on the matter and call it a day.
This is nationwide gaslighting by Clinton gang of neoliberals who attempted coup d'état, and Adam Schiff was just one of the
key figures in this coupe d'état, king of modern Joe McCarthy able and willing to destroy a person using false evidence
What is interesting is that Tucker attacked Republicans for aiding and abetting the coup
d'état against Trump
"... "This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating actions taken before "and after ... the election." ..."
"... And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page . ..."
"... "Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. " ..."
"... " It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with "Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. ..."
"... Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on . ..."
John Durham has supercharged his review into the origins of the
Russiagate hoax orchestrated by the Obama administration during and after the 2016 US election
- adding additional top prosecutors to explore different components of the original probe,
according to
Fox News .
Durham, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut tasked with by Attorney General Bill Barr with
investigating the actions taken against the Trump team, has tapped Jeff Jensen - U.S. attorney
for the Eastern District of Missouri who had been investigating the Michael Flynn case. Also
added to the team is interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Timothy Shea,
according to Fox 's sources.
" They farmed the investigation out because it is too much for Durham and he didn't want to
be distracted ," said one source, adding "He's going full throttle, and they're looking at
everything. "
Word of Durham's beefed-up team comes amid worsening tensions between the Trump
administration and congressional Democrats, who have been making the case that the Justice
Department's reviews have become politicized given the decision last week to drop the Flynn
case - a move which House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called
"outrageous."
" The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming ," said Nadler - who probably wasn't
referring to handwritten notes by one of the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn which
exposed their perjury trap . Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his perfectly
legal communications with a Russian ambassador - a plea he made while under severe financial
strain due to legal expenses, and to save his son from the FBI 'witch hunt.' Flynn would later
withdraw his plea as evidence mounted that he was set up.
The DOJ determined that the bureau's 2017 Flynn interview -- which formed the basis for
his guilty plea of lying to investigators -- was "conducted without any legitimate
investigative basis."
Breadcrumbs were being dropped in the days preceding the decision that his case could be
reconsidered. Documents unsealed the prior week by the Justice Department revealed agents
discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe – questioning
whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit
wrongdoing. Flynn allies howled over the revelations, arguing that he essentially had been
set up in a perjury trap. In that interview, Flynn did not admit wrongdoing and instead was
accused of lying about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador – to which he
pleaded guilty. -
Fox News
Jensen, the U.S. attorney now working with Durham, was reportedly the one who recommended
dropping the Flynn case to Barr.
Barr speaks
When asked whether he thought the FBI conspired against Flynn, Barr told CBS News on
Thursday "I think, you know, that's a question that really has to wait [for] an analysis of all
the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of
President Trump's administration," adding that Durham is "still looking at all of this."
"This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and
we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating
actions taken before "and after ... the election."
And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which
includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page .
President Trump has long-referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" - which Barr and
Durham are now untangling.
"Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been
briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. "
President Trump on Friday offered a vague, but ominous, warning as the Durham probe
proceeds.
" It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with
"Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible
people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. "
Trump
was specifically reacting to newly released transcripts of interviews from the House
Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation
that revealed top Obama officials acknowledged they knew of no "empirical evidence" of a
conspiracy despite their concerns and suspicions. -
Fox News
Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected
to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on .
R ep. Lee Zeldin demanded that Rep. Adam Schiff be stripped
of his post as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and resign because of his role in
the Russia investigation.
"Adam Schiff should not be the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. His gavel should
be removed. He should be censured. He should resign," Zeldin said Monday on Fox News. "There's
a lot that should happen, but Nancy Pelosi isn't going to punish Adam Schiff. In fact, that's
the reason why he has the gavel in the first place."
Republicans have been critical of Schiff in recent weeks after reports suggested that
Schiff was trying to block the release of some of the transcripts of the investigation's 53
witness interviews.
Some of the transcripts were eventually released and
undercut claims used by Democrats to push for impeachment.
"He's the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which became the House Impeachment
Committee because of the way he writes these fairy-tale parodies," Zeldin said.
The Republican from New York suggested that Schiff and Democrats who impeached Trump and
tried to remove him from office were aided by friends in the media.
"It's actually one that the Democrats reward. It's one that the media rewards," Zeldin said.
"So, I'm not going to expect any repercussions even though he should resign today."
"... Grenell reportedly visited the Justice Department last week to request the list of individuals, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity. ..."
Richard Grenell, President Trump's acting Director of National
Intelligence who successfully pressured Adam Schiff (D-CA) into releasing bombshell transcripts
from the Russia investigation, is now after former officials from the Obama administration
involved in the so-called "unmasking" of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn during
his conversations with the former Russian ambassador following the 2016 election, according to
ABC News .
"Unmasking" is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen or lawful resident is
revealed in classified intelligence reports. Normally, when government officials receive
intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect their privacy. But
officials can request that names, listed as "U.S. Person 1," for example, be unmasked
internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence. Unmasking is
justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the U.S.
intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak
classified information generated by the process .
And much like Obama's IRS targeting scandal, US government capabilities were exploited to
accomplish political objectives .
Grenell reportedly visited the Justice Department last week to request the list of
individuals, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
His visit indicates his focus on an issue previously highlighted in 2017 by skeptics of
the investigation into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia, specifically allegations
that former officials improperly unveiled Flynn's identity from intercepts of his call with
former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Grenell's visit came the same week that Attorney General William Barr moved to dismiss the
criminal case against Flynn following his guilty plea for lying to the FBI about his
conversations with Kislyak. -
ABC News
After Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice was outed as the ringleader of an unmasking
campaign, the Wall Street Journal reported that she wasn't the only administration official to
participate in Flynn's unmasking .
The news comes after the DOJ dropped all charges against Flynn, after several unsealed
documents revealed that the FBI was more interested in ensnaring him in a perjury trap - after
the agency's own DC field office advised that they were
barking up the wrong tree . Under pressure due to legal bills and an FBI threat to pursue
his son, Flynn caved and pleaded guilty to lying about his communications with the Russian
ambassador.
" They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that
stage , based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the
transition," Barr told CBS last week.
In 2017, then-House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) accused the Obama
administration of unmasking Trump transition officials - while two national security officials
at the White House provided Nunes with supporting evidence.
Will Grenell unmask the unmaskers?
• @GenFlynn was wrongly targeted.
• The Steele Dossier was made-up.
• The Russia-collusion narrative was a farce.
Obama's White House and Justice Department led the way on these lies. Time for Susan Rice,
James Clapper, and Loretta Lynch to answer for what transpired.
So the RussiaGate was giant gaslighting of the US electorate by Clinton gang and intelligence
agencies rogues.
Notable quotes:
"... For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks ..."
"... Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left." ..."
"... This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up" selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network. ..."
"... Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive." ..."
"... Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly crumbled. ..."
"... Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See: "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."] ..."
"... Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A: "You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a harbinger of things to come. This video clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it. ..."
"... Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come. ..."
For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have
the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too.
House Intelligence Committee
documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that
the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers
to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks in July 2016.
The until-now-buried, closed-door testimony came on Dec. 5, 2017 from Shawn Henry, a
protégé of former FBI Director Robert Mueller (from 2001 to 2012), for whom
Henry served as head of the Bureau's cyber crime investigations unit.
Henry retired in 2012 and took a senior position at CrowdStrike, the cyber security firm
hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to investigate the cyber intrusions that occurred
before the 2016 presidential election.
The following excerpts from Henry's testimony
speak for themselves. The dialogue is not a paragon of clarity; but if read carefully, even
cyber neophytes can understand:
Ranking Member Mr. [Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians
exfiltrated the data from the DNC? when would that have been?
Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have
indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was
exfiltrated (sic). There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say
conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't
have the evidence that says it actually left.
Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you
know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence
that they actually were exfiltrated?
Mr. Henry: There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's
circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.
Mr. Stewart: But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually
left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?
Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the
network.
Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you've
indicated.
Mr. Henry: "We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data
left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.
In answer to a follow-up query on this line of questioning, Henry delivered this classic:
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we
believe it left, based on what we saw."
Inadvertently highlighting the tenuous underpinning for CrowdStrike's "belief" that Russia
hacked the DNC emails, Henry added: "There are other nation-states that collect this type of
intelligence for sure, but the – what we would call the tactics and techniques were
consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state."
Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry's testimony. Henry is asked when
"the Russians" exfiltrated the data from DNC.
Henry: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC,
but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated." ?? pic.twitter.com/TyePqd6b5P
Try as one may, some of the testimony remains opaque. Part of the problem is ambiguity in
the word "exfiltration."
The word can denote (1) transferring data from a computer via the Internet (hacking) or
(2) copying data physically to an external storage device with intent to leak it.
As the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has been reporting for more than
three years, metadata and other hard forensic evidence indicate that the DNC emails were not
hacked – by Russia or anyone else.
Rather, they were copied onto an external storage device (probably a thumb drive) by
someone with access to DNC computers. Besides, any hack over the Internet would almost
certainly have been discovered by the dragnet coverage of the National Security Agency and
its cooperating foreign intelligence services.
Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be
exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."
This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up"
selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been
detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network.
Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn
affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from
the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks
demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb
drive."
The So-Called Intelligence Community Assessment
There is not much good to be said about the embarrassingly evidence-impoverished
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017 accusing Russia of hacking the
DNC.
But the ICA did include two passages that are highly relevant
and demonstrably true:
(1) In introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution", the authors of the ICA made a
highly germane point: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations
difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation – malicious or not –
leaves a trail."
(2) "When analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' [these] are not intended
to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment
does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
[And one might add that they commonly ARE wrong when analysts succumb to political pressure,
as was the case with the ICA.]
The intelligence-friendly corporate media, nonetheless, immediately awarded the status of
Holy Writ to the misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" (it was a rump effort
prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only CIA, FBI, and NSA), and chose to overlook the
banal, full-disclosure-type caveats embedded in the assessment itself.
Then National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the directors of the CIA, FBI, and
NSA briefed President Obama on the ICA on Jan. 5, 2017, the day before they gave it
personally to President-elect Donald Trump.
On Jan. 18, 2017, at his final press conference, Obama saw fit to use lawyerly language on
the key issue of how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks , in an apparent effort to cover
his own derriere.
Obama: "The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking
were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through
which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked."
So we ended up with "inconclusive conclusions" on that admittedly crucial point. What
Obama was saying is that U.S. intelligence did not know -- or professed not to know --
exactly how the alleged Russian transfer to WikiLeaks was supposedly made, whether
through a third party, or cutout, and he muddied the waters by first saying it was a hack,
and then a leak.
From the very outset, in the absence of any hard evidence, from NSA or from its foreign
partners, of an Internet hack of the DNC emails, the claim that "the Russians gave the DNC
emails to WikiLeaks " rested on thin gruel.
In November 2018 at a public forum, I asked Clapper to explain why President Obama still
had serious doubts in late Jan. 2017, less than two weeks after Clapper and the other
intelligence chiefs had thoroughly briefed the outgoing president about their
"high-confidence" findings.
Clapper
replied : "I cannot explain what he [Obama] said or why. But I can tell you we're, we're
pretty sure we know, or knew at the time, how WikiLeaks got those emails." Pretty
sure?
Preferring CrowdStrike; 'Splaining to Congress
CrowdStrike already had a tarnished reputation for credibility when the DNC and Clinton
campaign chose it to do work the FBI should have been doing to investigate how the DNC emails
got to WikiLeaks . It had asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery
app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's struggle with separatists supported
by Russia. A Voice of America
report explained why CrowdStrike was forced to retract that claim.
Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely
he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media
reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee
there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers.
"Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw,"
he said. Comey described
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company.
Asked by committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and
devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would have. "Our
forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's
involved, so it's the best evidence," he said.
Five months later, after Comey had been fired, Burr gave him a Mulligan in the form of a
few kid-gloves, clearly well-rehearsed, questions:
BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate
– did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to
rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
COMEY: In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We
got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done
the work. But we didn't get direct access.
BURR: But no content?
COMEY: Correct.
BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence
standpoint?
COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who
were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that
they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.
In June last year it was
revealed that CrowdStrike never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the
government because the FBI never required it to, according to the Justice Department.
By any normal standard, former FBI Director Comey would now be in serious legal trouble,
as should Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, et al. Additional evidence of FBI
misconduct under Comey seems to surface every week – whether the abuses of FISA,
misconduct in the case against Gen. Michael Flynn, or misleading everyone about Russian
hacking of the DNC. If I were attorney general, I would declare Comey a flight risk and take
his passport. And I would do the same with Clapper and Brennan.
Schiff: Every Confidence, But No Evidence
Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly
crumbled.
Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows
Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report
failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition
research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See:
"The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."]
Five days after Trump took office, I had an opportunity to confront Schiff personally
about evidence that Russia "hacked" the DNC emails. He had repeatedly given that canard the
patina of flat fact during an address at the old Hillary Clinton/John Podesta "think tank,"
The Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A:
"You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a
harbinger of things to come. This video
clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SdOy-l13FEg
Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows
Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the
origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges
against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to
keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come.
Given the timid way Trump has typically bowed to intelligence and law enforcement
officials, including those who supposedly report to him, however, one might rather expect
that, after a lot of bluster, he will let the too-big-to-imprison ones off the hook. The
issues are now drawn; the evidence is copious; will the Deep State, nevertheless, be able to
prevail this time?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
News .
"These agents specifically schemed and planned with each other how to not tip him off, that
he was even the person being investigated," Powell told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures,"
adding "So they kept him relaxed and unguarded deliberately as part of their effort to set him
up and frame him."
According to recently released testimony, President Obama revealed during an Oval Office
meeting weeks before the interview that he knew about Flynn's phone call with Russian
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak , apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates .
After the meeting, Obama asked Yates and then-FBI Director James Comey to "stay behind."
Obama "specified that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was
seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently,
given the information." -
Fox News
Despite the FBI's Washington DC field office recommending closing the case against Flynn -
finding "no derogatory information" against him - fired agent Peter Strzok
pushed to continue investigating, while former FBI Director
James Comey admitted in December 2019 that he "sent" Strzok and agent Joe Pientka to
interview Flynn without notifying the White House first .
... ... ...
After Strzok and Pientka interviewed Flynn,
handwritten notes unsealed last month reveal that at least one agent thought the goal was
to entrap Flynn .
"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?" reads one note.
... ... ...
"The whole thing was orchestrated and set up within the FBI, [former Director of National
Intelligence James] Clapper, [Former CIA Director John] Brennan, and in the Oval Office meeting
that day with President Obama," said Powell. When asked if she thinks Flynn was the victim of a
plot that extended to Obama, she said "Absolutely."
FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American
foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous
insight:
"You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal
messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats
over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston.
As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of
'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy
is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to
clean out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office ."
Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the
Cold War, Wallace stated:
"American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as the Deep State. "Fascism
in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for
war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and
using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races,
creeds and classes."
In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission , Wallace said " Before the blood of our boys is scarcely
dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War
III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by
following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well
as in war."
"... "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system." ..."
"... Federal prosecutors are equipped with a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one that could be reached via a plea bargain. ..."
"... The upside of such a process is a streamlined criminal justice system which places a premium on convictions and incarceration without the cost of a trial. The downside, however, is an unacceptably high rate of false confessions obtained by the plea deal process -- the National Registry of Exonerations estimates that as many as 20 percent of all plea deal-related confessions are false . ..."
"... The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine, because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all. ..."
The Department of Justice's case against retired Army
Lieutenant General and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has exposed an ugly
reality involving the abuse of power at the highest levels of the Executive Office all the way
down the justice system this country ostensibly holds so dear.
Plea bargains are an unfortunate reality of an American system of justice which finds merit
in coercing people to admit guilt for crimes they didn't commit in order to avoid the expense
of a trial and to prevent friends and family from potential legal liability. If the purpose
behind such procedural abuse of power is to fight actual crime, the American people have grown
accustomed to turning a blind eye. But if the purpose is to exact political revenge on someone
who has incurred the disfavor of those in power, then the plea bargain system is a direct
assault on the Constitution that should insult every American, regardless where they stand on
the respective merits of the case. General Flynn's case falls firmly in the latter
category.
But in a surprising turn of events, the Department of Justice has dropped
its case against Flynn on the eve of his being sentenced in a Federal Court. In their
dismissal of the case, the Justice department concluded that the FBI's interview with Flynn was
"conducted without any legitimate investigative basis" and that the questioning was "untethered
to, and unjustified by, the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn."
Flynn's many critics have cried foul, claiming the dismissal is nothing short of a
perversion
of justice carried out at the behest of President Trump by an overly partisan Attorney
General, William Barr. Flynn's supporters have praised this outcome as a
clear case of exoneration in the face of corrupt FBI agents who abused the extraordinary
powers they wield to engage in Constitutionally impermissible conduct designed to frame the
former General.
In 2018, the Department of Justice initiated approximately
80,000 federal prosecutions . Two percent of these cases went to trial, with an 83 percent
conviction rate. Of the remaining 98 percent of the cases, some 90 percent ended with the
defendant pleading guilty; the remaining 8 percent were dismissed. The plea process is so
prevalent and pervasive in the U.S. Court system that in the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in
Missouri v. Frye , Justice Steven Kennedy, writing for the majority, quoted
a prominent law review article which concluded that "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to
the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system."
Federal prosecutors are equipped with
a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage
a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a
single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing
judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and
the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one
that could be reached via a plea bargain.
The reason for such a high rate of occurrence rests in the coercive reality attached to the
tools used by the prosecutor to leverage a plea in the first place. For someone who is guilty
of a crime, a plea deal that reduces a potential 20-year sentence to five is very attractive.
For an innocent person, however, the prospect of not being able to afford competent legal
representation (an all-too reality, especially in one is subjected to pre-trial confinement and
as such unable to earn a living), combined with potential threats made to prosecute family and
friends, make pleading guilty to a crime not committed a viable option.
The plea bargain process also facilitates prosecutorial misconduct. By pleading guilty, a
defendant cedes control of the processes of justice to the prosecution; issues related to
discovery -- the requirement on the part of the prosecution to turn over all evidence relating
to the charged conduct, even if exculpatory in nature -- are often brushed aside, since guilt
is admitted and no challenge to the charges will be mounted. Prosecutors more often than not
bully their way into a coerced plea agreement, even when they know that their case would not
withstand scrutiny, because simple statistics have proven that more often than not they can get
away with it.
♦♦♦
The prosecution of General Flynn is a text-book example of clear prosecutorial abuse
designed to obtain a guilty plea. The FBI initiated a counterintelligence-scope investigation
against General Flynn not because he was accused of committing a crime, but rather because he
had incurred the wrath of the Obama administration.
When the FBI opened its Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened on July 31, 2016, its
scope was limited to allegations that a Trump campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos, was in
contact with persons working on behalf of the Russian government who were involved in the
alleged theft of documents from the Democratic National Committee server. Flynn had no
connection whatsoever to this issue. However, the FBI used the Crossfire Hurricane
investigation as cover to
open a separate investigation , known as Crossfire Razor, against Flynn based upon contacts
he had with Russia Today, a state-sponsored media outlet.
William Barr has since determined
that Crossfire Razor was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation in so far as it
lacked proper predication and Flynn's Russian connections were not materially relevant.
In January 2017 the FBI was preparing to shut down Crossfire Razor when FBI Special Agent
Peter Strzok argued that it remain open so that he could conduct an interview with Flynn about
his telephone call with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016. This is where the Flynn case loses
touch with its foundation of legality. The Flynn-Kislyak phone call was monitored by the U.S.
intelligence community. Normally the identity of any U.S. citizen so monitored is "masked," or
hidden, from any consumer of the intelligence. On certain occasions, select senior officials
may request that an identity be "unmasked" to allow for a greater understanding of the context
of the conversation. Flynn's identity was "unmasked" using this procedure, most likely on the
orders of then-FBI Director James Comey.
According to Comey , he then briefed Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who
in turn briefed President Obama.
There was bad blood between Flynn, Clapper and Obama. On November 10, 2016, when Obama met
with President-elect Trump in the White House,
he warned Trump not to hire Flynn as his National Security Advisor, ostensibly because of
his behavior while serving as the Director of DIA; Trump ignored this advice, naming Flynn as
the incoming NSA on November 18. Clapper was the man who fired Flynn at the DIA in 2014.
On January 12, David Ignatius published an article in The Washington Post which
detailed Flynn's December conversation with Kislyak; Sydney Powell, Flynn's laywer, has filed
documents with the Federal Court asserting that Ignatius had received this highly classified
information in violation of the law, and furthermore that is was Clapper who
cleared Ignatius to "take the kill shot on Flynn" by publishing the details of the
Flynn-Kislyak conversation.
If the potential for collusion between the FBI Director (Comey), the Director of National
Intelligence (Clapper) and the President of the United States (Obama) to undermine Flynn wasn't
disturbing enough, the fact that Ignatius' article enabled the FBI to conduct an interview on
January 24 with Flynn that has been
described by William Barr as "a perjury trap" should seal the deal.
Flynn was subsequently fired as the NSA, charged with lying to the FBI, bankrupted in the
process of trying to defend himself, and threatened with the prosecution of his son if he opted
to take the matter to trial. Like many before him, Flynn pled guilty to a crime he never should
have been charged with in the first place. Only the diligence of Flynn's current legal team in
forcing disclosure of exculpatory information, combined with William Barr's efforts to expose
wrongdoing by the FBI and the Intelligence Community in investigating alleged collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russia, made the dismissal of Flynn's case possible.
It doesn't matter where one stands on the issue of Mike Flynn, the man. I for one am
personally disturbed by his overly partisan approach toward national security, and the liberty
he takes with facts when making an argument. I don't believe he was the right person to serve
as Trump's National Security Advisor. Apparently neither did President Obama and his national
security team. But we don't have a vote in this matter; the National Security Advisor is
President Trump's responsibility to select. Elections have consequences.
The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked
Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a
baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place
Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the
fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine,
because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several
books, including his forthcoming, Scorpion King: America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump
(2020).
And you have to ask yourself one question. They all stuck with the same exact propaganda,
the same exact his information, that the Trump administration, that the Trump campaign
conspired with Russia, even though they had no evidence whatsoever, and they manufactured that
evidence against the president."
"And this is why all of them need to be investigated" explained Carter.
FBI under Obama acted as Gestapo -- the political police. Obama looks now especially bad and probably should be
prosecuted for the attempt to stage coup d'état against legitimately elected president. His CIA connections need to investigated
and prosecuted too, and first of all Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings. ..."
"... "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that." ..."
"... Obama asked Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded. ..."
"... Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes. "Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington examiner ..."
"... Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn. If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl ..."
"... All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion! ..."
"... I'm revealing my age by using this expression from the Watergate era, but "what did Obama, Biden and Comey know, and when did they know it?" ..."
"... So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit. ..."
"... Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand. ..."
"... Brennan was encouraging Comey. I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how long they have known each other. ..."
"... I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not want to investigate? ..."
"
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told special counsel Robert Mueller's team that
she first learned the FBI possessed and was investigating recordings of Flynn's late 2016
conversations with a Russian envoy following a Jan. 5, 2017, national security meeting at the
White House. It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President Barack Obama.
Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump
administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the
FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming
Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings.
These revelations appear in declassified FBI interview notes of the Mueller team's
conversation with Yates in August 2017, highlighted by the Justice Department on Thursday as
U.S. Attorney for D.C. Timothy Shea moved to drop its
criminal charges against Flynn.
"One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney
General William Barr
said during a Thursday
interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a
couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of
Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama
administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know,
Director Comey ran around that."
Yates told Mueller's team she first learned of the Flynn recordings following a White House
meeting about the Intelligence Community Assessment attended by Yates, Comey, Vice
President Joe Biden , then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, then-national security adviser Susan Rice, and others. Obama asked
Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded.
Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his
conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes.
"Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking
information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington
examiner
-------------
Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account
of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn.
If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since
Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high
was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl
All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the
closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of
collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the
Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the
media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion!
Devin Nunes was spot on and correct that there was an attempted coup. All the media and
even many Republicans called him a conspiracy theorist.
SST maintaining its glorious tradition was spot on in its analysis with the limited data
available that there was a coup and the traitors were not those in the Trump campaign but the
leadership in law enforcement and intelligence. A big shoutout to you, Larry and David
Habakkuk.
Trump himself was like deer caught in the headlights. Furiously tweeting but not doing
much of anything else while his own nominees at the DOJ and FBI were plotting and acting to
destroy his presidency. Devin Nunes imploring him to declassify and expose all the evidence
from the FISA applications, the 302s, the internal communications among the plotters
including the prolific FBI lovers. He still hasn't.
What happens next? Will the whole coup be exposed in its entirety? Will anyone be held to
account?
If Trump doesn't care enough even when his ass was being fried to disclose all the
evidence with the stroke of his pen and if all he cares is to tweet "witch-hunt" and "Drain
the Swamp", how realistic is it that any of the coup plotters will be tried for treason?
So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit
him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit.
Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover
their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for
the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand.
Yahoo released a leaked call today of Obama criticizing Trump's response over coronavirus.
Here's the big headline Yahoo is running:
Exclusive: Obama says in private call that 'rule of law is at risk' in Michael Flynn
case
The Flynn case was invoked by Obama as a principal reason that his former administration
officials needed to make sure former Vice President Joe Biden wins the November election
against President Trump. "So I am hoping that all of you feel the same sense of urgency
that I do," he said. "Whenever I campaign, I've always said, 'Ah, this is the most
important election.' Especially obviously when I was on the ballot, that always feels like
it's the most important election. This one -- I'm not on the ballot -- but I am pretty darn
invested. We got to make this happen."
Obama misstated the charge to which Flynn had previously pleaded guilty. He was charged
with false statements to the FBI, not perjury.
Misstated seems like a stretch. The call sounds scripted and I suspect the leak was
deliberate.
Brennan was encouraging Comey.
I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time
that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how
long they have known each other.
O'Biden's Dad just wheeled around the corner in a wood paneled station wagon and dressed
down the neighborhood kids who took O'Biden's ball. A humiliating experience for O'Biden who
sits in the passenger seat as a mere spectator.
The open question is: Just who were those contractors?
Surely that is known to some, and is significant to current politically-charged
inquiries.
Just why that information has not become public is a good question.
Can anyone provide a reliable source for that information?
It is unsurprising @realDonaldTrump enjoys wallowing in his fetid self-indulgence, but I
find it surreal that so many other government officials encourage his ignorance,
incompetence, & destructive behavior.
BTW, history will be written by the righteous, not by his lickspittle.
She served as Acting AG, accepting the post when Trump was inaugurated. What did she tell him
about his whole affair? Was the opposition to the EO 13769 just an excuse to have herself
fired so she would not have to either perjure herself or reveal the truth to Trump?
Jack,
"All this was known in DC for the past few years."
You left out that Paul Ryan was Speaker of the House because the Republicans were in the
majority then and the HPSCI under his term as speaker did not subpoena a very large group of
people, didn't ask relevant questions, didn't release information to the public and thus
ensuring the left took over the House after the 2016 elections.
I, too, coincidentally just concluded a close reading of the Conservative Tree House post
that Mr. Harbaugh just recommended. It is, indeed, well worth such a close reading. There
have been various puzzling things along the way these last few years for which this post
provides explanations. Of particular utility, is its inclusion of a timeline of the arc of
the episodes of illegal government surveillance that began (?) with the IRS spying of 2012,
and how - and why - it evolved from that episode into the massive abuses of the FISA process
of which we are becoming increasingly aware as revelations are forthcoming.
CTH's work is superb, but I do want to say that I am also supremely grateful for all of
the good work and analysis from Larry Johnson, and other contributors, as well as for the
trenchant comments of Col. Lang. Multivalent sources of information, analysis, and comment
provide one with the parallax requisite to understanding this web of perfidy. My gratitude
also is owing to all of you Members of the Committee of Correspondence, each of whom brings
personal observations and insights to bear, always much to my benefit.
I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from
issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not
want to investigate?
["One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates," Attorney
General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General
Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the
fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be
treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about
their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that."]
++++++++++++
This is fascinating because: this, what Barr is discussing, on national TV, . . . this
particular dimension, this Yates/Comey playing hide the bacon has nothing at all to do with
actual Brady material in the Lt. Gen. Flynn case.
Barr is referring to the Special Counsel Mueller Office's interview with Yates on Aug. 15,
2017, entered into the system three weeks later. Her interview occurred more than two months
prior to Flynn's coerced guilty plea.
This SCO document was released to the court May 7 as exhibit 4 attached to the DOJ motion
to end the prosecution of Flynn. It was produced in line with request by defense for Brady
material.
What Barr forgets to say is: This SCO interview of Yates shows that Comey and Yates talked
on the phone -- prior to -- the notorious Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn.
"Comey . . . informed her that two agents were on their way to interview Flynn at the
White House," the SCO said, according to the new court filing.
Yates took no action, -- she did nothing to order Comey to abort this soon-to-happen FBI
interview of Flynn, this SCO interview of her shows.
She was Comey's boss, the Acting Attorney General, at the time.
It shows that she was upset precisely because she wanted the FBI to coordinate with the
DOJ -- on getting Flynn screwed -- even suggesting, she told the SCO, that consideration that
Flynn be recorded, instead of memorialized using standard 302 form –
in-writing-only.
Yates wanted Flynn fired, she told the SCO.
Yates apparently was unable on her own to figure out, as the AG, the FBI and DOJ -- none
of them had any predicate, no "materiality," nothing "tethered" to any crime, as there was no
crime. And if she did not know these basic facts, had no awareness of them, then: why was she
the AG in the first place?
And what did Yates glean, right after this Jan. 24 interview of Flynn?
"Yates received a brief readout of the interview the night it happened, and a longer
readout the following day," which begs the question of why the original 302 of this was never
produced by the DOJ, to the defense; and also, why Covington law firm never asked to see this
before allowing Flynn to make his plea.
"Yates did not speak to the interviewing agents herself, but understood from others that
their assessment was that Flynn showed no 'tells' of lying," the SCO report says.
Based on her personal preference, rather than DOJ norms, she went to the White House, and
her expectation was they would fire Flynn. I fail to see how this nonsense by Yates seem to
escape Barr's notice. Or, is something else also going on?
She personally went to the White House, and her smear campaign against Flynn began, went
on and on and on, even after she was fired after being Acting AG for just ten days.
In her brief stint as Acting AG: Yates refused to tell the White House Counsel if Flynn
was being investigated, when the WHC asked her, directly, about this, according to what she
told the SCO. Can't blame this fact on the unctuous Comey.
She did tell the SCO that she wanted the WHC to know Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI
– and that she had concerns about Flynn, and she said those concerns related to the
Logan Act. Yates told SCO her concerns were because of the Logan Act, and that she expressed
this to the White House.
The Washington Examiner reporting that "It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President
Barack Obama" -- about the Flynn-Kislyak phone call --- this is interesting, very
interesting, if true, assuming Yates was telling the SCO the truth. This is what she claims
in her August 2017 interview with SCO.
But this bit of information is hardly Brady material [how is whether Obama or Comey told
her materially germane to the Flynn case, viz. Brady material?].
The question the SCO should have been concerned about is: who actually leaked the
transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call to the media?
Is this a serious crime? Or is this OK?
We still do not know this answer, and AG Barr has not told us. Nor has his boss,
Trump.
It is interesting that Barr chose to highlight that Comey went around Yates' back in Comey
ordering FBI to interview Flynn, but not that Yates knew of the Flynn interview before it
went down, and sat on her arse about it.
In fairness to Comey, they were, as the FB of Investigations, conducting the
investigation, which is their job, however rogue this FBI's I actually was, targeting
Flynn.
The Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, occurring late December of 2016, was reported by the
Washington Post on Jan. 12, 2017, eight days before Trump was sworn in.
And who leaked this, has anyone been prosecuted, will anyone be?
Obama still president, Loretta Lynch still AG, Yates still Deputy AG, Comey FBI director,
McCabe Deputy FBI director, etc.
Starting Jan. 20 and for ten days, Yates was the AG. She appeared bent on destroying
Flynn, and did nothing that I know of to prosecute who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone
call to WAPO. Did someone on high perhaps ask her not to?
Nor was Comey and McCabe investigating this as best I can tell. Yet this was an actual,
clear cut crime we all saw, plain as day. Or maybe this is OK? Was someone on high asking
them not to?
I watched Barr say, during his interview with CBS news, [following the May 7 release of
documents to the court]: "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how
Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney
General Yates," Barr told Catherine Herridge.
And my first thought was: why is Barr doing an apparent CYA for Yates?
What office might she want to be running for in the future; is she a cooperating witness
in the wider Durham probe, why is Yates being portrayed as someone other than what she was: A
leader in the effort to destroy Michael Flynn.
She was the AG, and she failed to hold Comey accountable at the time; this is a fact,
apparently, that reflects poorly on her.
She told the White House -- as best she could -- that Flynn was a piece of dung, and told
the SCO, in their interview of her, that she expected the White House to fire Flynn. This
reflects poorly on her.
And threatened Logan Act prosecution of Flynn to the White house. This reflects poorly on
her.
She smeared Flynn in a CNN interview on May 16, the day before Mueller was appointed. This
reflects poorly on her.
Well, who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, and did Yates act on that?
Folks that "should have known better" -- far and wide, smeared Flynn, justified the
lawlessness against him; one of many examples, titled: "Leaking Flynn's name to the press was
illegal, but utterly justified" published by TheHill.com.
She wasn't the only one, but Yates was smack dab in the middle of enabling and
perpetuating a long-running smear campaign against Flynn, to destroy him by any means
necessary. This reflects poorly on her.
Why is Barr carrying water for her.
As for Obama, he did nothing to stop Comey in 2016 when Comey announced he was exonerating
Clinton. Nor did AG Lynch, even though that is not the function of the FBI -- an act of
insubordination, by the way, for which Rosenstein officially fired him in May 2017, which
set, somehow, in motion the Mueller SC appointment by Rosenstein.
If Comey is such a rogue, and Barr is now claiming Yates tried to do the right thing, in
spite of Comey, then why didn't Yates fire Comey Jan. 24 right on the spot? And end the
fiasco right then and there?
In her May 16, 2017 CNN interview she only has kind words to say about him.
AS for who on high was encouraging Comey's extra legal free-lancing in the Clinton and
Flynn matters is a pertinent question.
Who were the enablers, in other words?
Barr appears to imply Comey did it all on his own, which is not entirely accurate. Perhaps
this also implies that Durham will prosecute Comey? I don't know if anyone will be prosecuted
at all. Time will tell.
It is clear Comey's enablers would, by rank, have been, viz. the Clinton matter: Obama and
Lynch.
In the Flynn matter: Trump and Yates.
Simple logic dictates that: if Main Justice was "not in the loop" then, for Clinton
matter, this means Obama was enabling Comey to exonerate her; and also dictate that, for
Flynn, that Trump was the one "on high" enabling Comey.
If there are others on high, they were not in the chain of command as I understand the
current US Government structure.
-30-
You seem to think Trump was informed of all the relevant information about the FBI's
conduct during his first ten days in office. Because Barr, being appointed AG two years after
these events, has yet to indict anyone in the case, Trump was actually enabling Yates in
destroying Flynn? Neither appear to be logical conclusions to me.
So on a December 29, 2016 The Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia that evolved to
Flynn, at the instruction of the incoming Trump administration, contacting the Russian
ambassador requesting that they not retaliate or heighten the situation.
On January 5th Ms. Yates learned from Obama of the Flynn intervention.
Rather than contact Trump directly Obama went along with the Comey Logan Act thoughts.
The decision to enact sanctions obviously involved State, CIA, DNI and FBI but why not
Justice or did it. But why was the incoming Trump administration not consulted.
There was only one Machiavellian thinker in that group and it wasn't the idiot who got his
panties all twisted up.
"This is a cabal of liars of the Obama administration senior officials," said Sara Carter, a
Fox News contributor and host of "The Sara Carter Show" on Fox News's show "The Ingraham Angle"
on Friday.
Watch
the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a>
"And you have to ask yourself one question. They all stuck with the same exact propaganda,
the same exact his information, that the Trump administration, that the Trump campaign
conspired with Russia, even though they had no evidence whatsoever, and they manufactured that
evidence against the president."
"And this is why all of them need to be investigated " explained Carter.
" What they did here is not only in effect of our national security, they basically told a
lie across the globe and divided our nation for more than three years, and eventually someone
is going to pay the price for this. And I think this is exactly why John Durham and Attorney
General William Barr are conducting this investigation so thoroughly, because what they did was
a crime against the American people.
"Why is it that Obama asks Comey and Yates, how should we treat Michael Flynn? Why does he
ask that question to them in a private meeting in the Oval Office?" asked Raymond Arroyo, who
hosted "The Ingraham Angle' on Friday.
"I think that is pretty evident, because he along with Michael Flynn had a very divisive
relationship," responded Carter.
" When Michael Flynn challenged him on the narrative that he was spreading that Al Qaeda was
on the run and that ISIS was just this jayvee team, Michael Flynn was not going to accept that.
He also was not going to accept the fact that there were serious problems within the
intelligence community, and he challenged President Obama on that. I think in the beginning it
was a good relationship. I remember that, they had a good relationship, and then it broke
apart."
"A lot of people don't remember, was that meeting that President Trump, very first meeting
he had with President Obama at the White House," continued Sara Carter.
"When President Obama put a seed in President Trump's head, saying, I only have one person I
want to warn you about, and that is Mike Flynn. And the reason they wanted Mike Flynn out was
because he was the only one in the administration that really understood the intelligence
community, and he was going to catch all of them and what they were doing , which was what they
were trying to do was break the administration apart and remove President Trump."
This was a coup d'état and it has little to do with the protection of Oabama policies,
but a lot with protection of Clinton clan to which Obama belongs.
FBI investigators were corrupt and acted as a political police
Notable quotes:
"... Heavily redacted FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous " Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor." (No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.) ..."
"... FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia; and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed regularly to determine if he was a spy. ..."
"... None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy issues." ..."
"... Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies. ..."
investigation
of Michael Flynn , the
more it appears he was targeted precisely because, as the national security adviser to the
incoming Trump administration, he signaled that the new administration might undo Obama
administration policies -- which is kind of what the American people voted for in 2016.
Some will say that Gen. Flynn was investigated for legitimate criminal or national security
reasons. Yet, the FBI's ultimate interview of Flynn addressed none of the grounds that the FBI
used to open the original case against him. For those of us who have run FBI investigations,
that is more than odd.
Heavily redacted
FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign
members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous "
Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor."
(No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.)
For the record, Flynn clearly exercised poor judgment as a result of being interviewed by
the FBI. The larger question is whether the team under then-Director James Comey had a legitimate basis to conduct the
interview at all.
FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated
reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump
campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia;
and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed
regularly to determine if he was a spy.
None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it
is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the
Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an
adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy
issues."
Let me be clear: That is not a legitimate justification to investigate an American
citizen.
There is a theme that runs through the entire Crossfire Hurricane disaster, which has been
publicly articulated by Comey and his deputy director, Andrew McCabe : They saw themselves as stalwarts
in the breach defending America from a presidential candidate who they believed was an
agent
of Russia .
... ... ...
Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI
special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a
founder and principal of NewStreet Global
Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic
mission technologies.
Russiagate has been an obvious coup attempt from the beginning, and several attempts have
followed...
__________________________________________________
That is not at all obvious.
Russiagate was obviously designed to look like a coup attempt, but you have to be extremely
gullible to believe any of it is real.
The recent Flynn bruhaha is a perfect example of the phoniness surrounding Russiagate.
The FBI investigators that interviewed Flynn believed he had not been deceptive and any
fool who was paying attention at the time believed he was not guilty because 2 weeks before
that FBI interview the news media had reported that the phone call with Kislyak had been
recorded by the FBI and that there was nothing improper or illegal that would motivate Flynn
to lie about his talk with Kislyak. The story that Flynn lied to the FBI is unbelievable on
its face.
Don't blame the FBI for creating this fake story. Trump is the one and only one that
created the fake Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story, Before Trump created the phony story that Flynn
had lied to the FBI nobody else had at that time believed Flynn lied to the FBI.
But once Trump had created the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI then all the gullible
morons started to believe the phony story. And even Flynn himself goes along with Trump's
phony story because he is a good soldier that follows command.
Before Comey's testimony to Congress that suggested that Trump was twisting Comey's arm to
let Flynn go for lying to the FBI no one had ever said that Flynn lied to the FBI. That story
was created by Trump and reported by Comey.
And then Mueller and Flynn and Comey all helped Trump foist that phony story that Flynn lied
to the FBI onto the public.
The implication of Comey's testimony to Congress was that in order to get Flynn off a
charge of Lying to the FBI Trump first tried to cajole Comey to go easy on Flynn and when
that did not work Trump fired Comey.
The problem with that whole BS story is that the crux of it (that Flynn lied to the FBI)
never happened. It was entirely invented by Trump to make it look like Trump was engaged in
mortal combat with the deep state. But it was all staged and fake (i.e. Kayfabe)
_______________________________________________
Well duh....
Russiagate was designed to fall apart.
It was obvious all along that all the stories that came out in the Mueller Report were
badly written sit-com material - the script for a comic soap opera. And they were all
scripted to fall apart when examined closely.
What I could never figure out was what this guy Mueller was going to say when he was
dragged in front of Congress and required to answer tough questions about all the garbage he
had produced. I thought for sure that for Mueller the jig would be up there was no way the
farce would not be revealed for all to see.
And then it happened. Mueller testified and it turned out Mueller could not remember any
of it.
Senator: Did you say XYZ?
Mueller: Is that in the report??
Senator: yes it is.
Mueller: Then it is true.
Making Mueller Senile and unable to remember anything was brilliant - pure genius. The
rest of the Russiagate script was mediocre at best.
It was a transparently false narrative designed, by the most incompetent election
campaign team in history ...
Occam's razor says Hillary threw the election. No seasoned politician would make the
mistakes that she made - especially when they yearn to make history (as the first
woman president) and the entire establishment (left and right) is counting on them to
win.
Believing what is evidently incredible has long been a test of loyalty
...
And you prove your loyalty with the belief that Hillary lost because of an
"incompetent election campaign".
All-in-all Obama was a CIA sponsored fraud: In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Notable quotes:
"... Now why is Obama against General Flynn? Hmmm. Good question. Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security? LINK ..."
"... Gen. Flynn: Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support Sunni extremists (a Jihadi proxy army) against Assad . This directly contradicts the phony narrative of Obama as peace-loving black man (as certified by his Nobel Prize!). ..."
"... In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises." ..."
Whether or not General Flynn is loathed or liked, there is Supreme Court decisions setting
precedence for dropping a case when found to be wrapped in prosecutorial misdeeds:
As for the first 'black' president out from the shadows;
Thanks for that additional link. And that's why Obama could not standby with Flynn in the
NSA role. Recall Hillary's on Trump- "if he is elected we'll hang" (paraphrased)
In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Fast Forward to 2011 he signs NDAA. "How Obama disappointed the world." Der Spiegel had
such an article 9 Aug.2011. But he was re-(S)-elected.
Did Obama Defense Deputy Lie To Protect Her Fraudulent Russiagate Sources?
xxx Barnacles, 1 minute ago
Justice for me, but not for thee. They prosecute Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadoupolis, and
tried to prosecute Trump. Yet, none of the Deep State/demonrats get prosecuted. No Comey,
Strzok, Page, McCabe, Clapper, or Brennan.
xxx booboo, 2 minutes ago
It would not be difficult to ascertain just the opposite, she spoke the truth in the MSNBC
interview and she lied under oath in a congressional hearing. There are always paper trails
and bread crumbs but they won't be followed because the Atlantic Council is the defacto State
Department. Ciitizen Jury, Crime and Punishment teams would have to enforce the law of the
land at this point.
xxx lwilland1012, 5 minutes ago (Edited)
Nobody is covering this bombshell that was dropped from the Grenell transcripts: "we had
indication that the DNC was hacked."
"Indication? Direct evidence?"
"No direct evidence."
Matt Taibi of all people is covering this bombshell from Crowdstrike
No direct evidence means that Russia DID NOT interfere in the election.
xxx onwisconsinbadger, 11 minutes ago
Did Michael Flynn Lie To Protect His Russia Sources?
Flynn was in violation of both federal law and the US Constitution Emoluments Clause which
forbids former military members from getting paid to lobby for a foreign government without
written permission from congress or the Secretary of the Army which he never got. Flynn was
lobbying for both Turkey and Russia without explicit permission to do so. Technically he
could be brought back to active duty and tried in a Courts Martial for what he did or be
charged in a federal court but that would be pointless with Trump as POTUS like so many other
things with Trump it establishes a dangerous precedent for future incidents because they will
argue a uneven application of law because Flynn wasn't prosecuted so why should they?
"... The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC 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 Russiagate without Russia. ..."
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even 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. ..."
"... Russiagate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary of State Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. ..."
Cohen offers the following general observations, which form the basis of the discussion:
The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC
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 Russiagate 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 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 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 US 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. Cohen himself, to take an individual example, was
an adviser to two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered his wide-ranging and longstanding "contacts" with Russia
to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president he advised. To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal
is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave US 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
Cohen, in a previous Batchelor broadcast and commentary, argued that Russiagate and its promoters have become the gravest threat
to American national security.
Russiagate 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 US intel officials in the creation of that document.) That said, Cohen continues, the mainstream
American media have been largely responsible for inflating, perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russiagate 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 Consortium News. 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 Russiagate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples
of Russiagate without Russia.
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 Russiagate-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 Cohen pointed out in another previous 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 Russiagate 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 US 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 UN resolution.
Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary
of State 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, Cohen asks, 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-in the spirit
of DOD-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 Russiagate 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, he 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, Cohen concludes, 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 Russiagate 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.
A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book, War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available in
paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in their seventh year,
are available at www.thenation.com.
"... In 2010, Flynn co-authored an important analysis, Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan . Flynn's key conclusion warned that the U.S. intelligence effort in Afghanistan was failing: ..."
"... The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade. ..."
"... lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches, using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S. intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion. ..."
"... During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress. ..."
"... Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support some of the Syrian rebels. ..."
"... This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014 interview with the New Yorker: ..."
"... "The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian. ..."
"... His refusal to downplay the ISIS threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA position in August 2014. ..."
"... Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed policies in the Middle East ..."
"... This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama political/intelligence hit squad : ..."
"... Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness" has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam " ..."
"... But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located. ..."
"... Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did. ..."
"... If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever got to a courtroom, they'd be facing - in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial. ..."
"... Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out. ..."
"... They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North Africa, to fill in the void ..."
"... It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned, precipitated these failures. ..."
"... Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly, he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead. ..."
"... ...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and titles of the people... ..."
"... At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ. ..."
"... Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK "expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism? ..."
"... Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory. ..."
"... Thanks for the excellent summary of how Flynn became "persona non grata" to various powers in the IC. But there is another powerful group in Washington whose fervent enmity he drew: the Democratic establishment. See: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/how-mike-flynn-became-americas-angriest-general-214362 ..."
"... Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling on why there was such a push to find something to prosecute Flynn over was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up." "What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington. I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find something to prosecute Flynn over. ..."
Two and one-half years ago, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller unveiled charges against
Michael Flynn for "lying to Federal agents." At the time I gave Mueller the benefit of the
doubt and assumed, incorrectly, that the investigation was fair and honest. We now know without
any doubt that the so-called investigation of Michael Flynn was frame-up. It was a punishment
in search of a crime and ultimately led the FBI to manufacture a crime in order to take out
Michael Flynn and damage the fledgling Presidency of Donald Trump.
It is important to understand the lack of proper foundation to investigate Michael Flynn as
a collaborator with Russia as part of some bizarre plot to steal the 2016 Presidential election
for Donald Trump.
Flynn was perceived as a threat to the CIA and refused to cook the intelligence for the
Obama Administration while he was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of
collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus
still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we
operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade.
Flynn's work did not sit well with Jim Clapper and John Brennan. John Schindler, a rabid
anti-Trumper, wrote a hit piece on Flynn in December 2017, that highlights the Deep State anger
at Flynn. Schindler characterizes Flynn's work in unflattering terms and
claims that Flynn :
lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches,
using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S.
intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion.
Flynn's honesty in that assessment did
not derail his next promotion -- he was sworn in as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
July 2012. Once in that position he refused to cook the intelligence. I saw this firsthand (at
the time I had access to the classified intelligence analysis by DIA with respect to the war in
Syria). During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the
Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media
reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of
ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain
and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress.
Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support
some of the Syrian rebels. The program was a failure and the attack on the CIA base in
Benghazi, Libya came close to exposing the covert effort. What the media was not reporting is
that the rebels the U.S. backed were inept. The only rebels achieving some success were the
radical jihadists aligned with ISIS and elements of Al Qaeda (e.g. Al Nusra).
This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you
recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014
interview with the New Yorker:
"The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts
on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an
uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and
reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the
homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often
sectarian.
But that was not the story that Flynn's DIA was telling. His refusal to downplay the ISIS
threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA
position in August 2014.
Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed
policies in the
Middle East :
Since taking off his uniform last August, Flynn, 56, has been in the vanguard of those
criticizing the president's policies in the Middle East, speaking out at venues ranging from
congressional hearings and trade association banquets to appearances on Fox News, CNN, Sky News
Arabia, and Japanese television, targeting the Iranian nuclear deal, the weakness of the U.S.
response to the Islamic State, and the Obama administration's refusal to call America's enemies
in the Middle East "Islamic militants."
This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task
Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence
collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama
political/intelligence hit squad :
They question why the retired general, who has earned criticism for his leadership style but
has generally been regarded as a well-intentioned professional, would assist a candidate who
has called for military actions that would constitute war crimes.
"I think Flynn and Trump are two peas in a pod," one former senior U.S. intelligence
official who knows Flynn told The Daily Beast. "They have this naïve notion that yelling
at people will just solve problems."
Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness"
has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea
that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues
the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups
like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam "
His co-author, Michael Ledeen,
is a neoconservative author and policy analyst who was involved in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Thanks to the document release on 30 April, 2020, we know that the FBI opened an
unsuccessful investigation of Flynn. Here are the key points from the memo recommending the
investigation be closed:
The FBI opened captioned case based on an particularly false factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR (CR)
may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which
may constitute a federal crime· or threat to the national security.
The FBI predicated the investigation on predetermined criteria set forth by the CROSSFIRE
HURRICANE (CH) investigative team based on an assessment of reliable lead information received
during the course of the investigation.
The FBI queried the FBI databases and at least two other intelligence community databases
for incriminating information but found NO DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI used a Confidential Human Source (aka CHS probably Stefan Halper) to try to collect
incriminating information. The CHS claimed that Flynn was in contact with Svetlana Lokhova, a
British academic born in Russia, but a subsequent FBI search of their databases turned up NO
DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI memo concludes:
the absence of any derogatory information or lead information from these logical sources
reduced the number of investigative avenues and techniques to pursue. . . . The FBI is closing
this investigation.
But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find
something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the
author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the
investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is
where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located.
They decided to pursue two lines of attack. First, to go after Flynn for allegedly failing
to register as a "Foreign Agent" because of a report his consulting firm prepared on a Turk
living in the United States that Turkey named as a "terrorist." Second, the FBI had in hand the
transcript of Flynn's conversations with Russia's Ambassador and wanted to entrap him into
lying about those conversations.
Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National
Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure
act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to
UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did.
The news of Mike Flynn's plea agreement in late 2017 with special prosecutor Robert Mueller
was trumpeted on the media as if Flynn admitted to killing Kennedy or having unprotected sex
with Vladimir Putin. But read the actual indictment and the accompanying agreement.
Here is the chronology of Michael Flynn's entirely appropriate actions as the National
Security Advisor to President-elect Donald Trump. This is not what an agent of Russia would do.
This is what the National Security Advisor to an incoming President would do.
December 21, 2016 --Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on
the issue of Israeli settlements ("resolution").
December 22, 2016-- a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team (reportedly
Jared Kushner) directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia,
to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to
delay the vote or defeat the resolution.
December 23, 2016-- FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that
if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
On this same day, President-elect Trump spoke with Egyptian leader Sisi, who agreed to
withdraw the resolution (
link ).
[I would note that there is nothing illegal or wrong about any of this. Quite an appropriate
action, in fact, for an incoming President. Moreover, if Trump and the Russians had been
conspiring before the November election, why would Trump and team even need to persuade the
Russian Ambassador to do the biding of Trump on this issue?]
December 28, 2016-- President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take
effect the following day, imposing sanctions on Russia. Russian Ambassador Kislyak called
General Flynn (who was vacationing in the Caribbean).
December 29, 2016 , FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT
official"), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the
Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the
Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed
the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming
administration's foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the
members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the
situation.
FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the
situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.
Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT
official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including
their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.
December 31, 2016-- the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had
chosen not to retaliate in response to FLYNN's request.
After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the
Presidential Transition Team about FLYNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding
the U.S. Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
Michael Flynn's contact with the Russian Government and other members of the UN Security
Council in the month preceding Trump's inauguration was appropriate and normal. He did nothing
wrong. But President Obama's henchmen, including James Comey, John Brennan, Jim Clapper and
Susan Rice were out for blood and relied on the FBI to stick the shiv into General Flynn's
belly.
That travesty of justice is being methodically and systematically revealed in the documents
delivered to the Flynn defense team thanks to the efforts of Attorney General William Barr.
Barr is relying on the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri (EDMO) to review the
case and provide Brady material to the Flynn defense team. This is by the book. Doing it this
way provides the legal foundation for future prosecution of the FBI and prosecutors who abused
the General Flynn's rights and violated the Constitution. Stay tuned.
All true in my book but it would be very hard to prosecute and get convictions as the defense
would be "We were working in the best interests of the US against the dastardly Russkies"
At least half the country believes it goes the Russians interfered materially in the 2016
election. 2018 poll
Great analysis, your article added a lot of context on why Flynn was targeted. What a
horrible thing to do to a person.
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/ that has
been doing A+ work on the Flynn set up, linked to you.
If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever
got to a courtroom, they'd be facing -
in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial.
Bottom line: Until the swamp is drained and then burned (meaning all SES and over a certain GS level
bureaucrats gone), we will continue to live under the thumbs of this corrupt "ruling
class." And getting rid of all these people wouldn't make much of a difference to most
Americans; witness the notorious "shutdowns" in recent years.
Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing
his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right
thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan
was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out.
They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to
Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North
Africa, to fill in the void while they could before Russia remained weak and China yet to
fully emerge, to checkmate the grand chessboard Zbigniew wrote of while the US held
unchallenged supremacy.
Obama was very naive about what Muslims are really like in some of those parts. It's best
to liken them to Comanches. He bought into the Zbigniew/Neocon belief that they'll just be
another Taliban, but ask any Afghan who managed to escape the country at the time and they'll
tell you these guys are all devils, djinns.
It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed
like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like
situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was
part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over
American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that
they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure
to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned,
precipitated these failures.
Obama made a lot of mistakes, but thankfully he didn't make it worse by invading in spite
of his red line. I have to credit him that much, but his failures in Libya and Syria are on
par with Bush's failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Disastrous doesn't even begin to describe
these failures.
Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly,
he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his
ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead.
"... internal investigation unit". If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle
blower" to allow hearsay evidence that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the
Western world that still makes it okay to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot
about Horowitz and his IG report already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks
for the laugh.
As much as I would love to see this "ruling class" brought low, by which I mean burnt to the
ground, we face the problem of The Ruling System, outlined in this post on the Z-Man blog:
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=20405 A little snippet from the post:
...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up
on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one
thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one
another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when
they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and
titles of the people...
Z-Man examines this in various historical settings, Versailles, Communist Russia, before
arriving at The Swamp. Interesting angle.
Small world, speaking of Seymour Hersh's lengthy CIA gun-running to Syria expose in "The Red
Line and Rat Line", that all his prior media connections refused to publish at the time
(Benghazi-Obama days), until it finally appeared in the London Review of Books- or something
like that.
At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background
pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ.
Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK
"expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona
death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian
pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism?
Who was it that says there are no coincidences? Long time since I saw any media attention
given to AVAAZ, nor any final answers why the CIA was running such a big operation in
Benghazi in 2012. However, all the same names and players still swirling around gives one
pause.
Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be
connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory.
Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling
on why there was such a push
to find something to prosecute Flynn over
was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up."
"What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington.
I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find
something to prosecute Flynn over.
AVAAZ pushed FaceBook and Zuckerberg to ban about half of FB content on novel coronavirus,
starting last month, Politico gleefully reported. [Two medical doctors in California 'out of
step' with the diktats of some medical cartel's message, among those FB canceled, for
example.]
AVAAZ, which pushed regime change in Syria, no fly zone in Libya, spews hatred of Russia,
etc. is alive and well, working hard at increasing online censorship.
Their clicktivism business model and lock downs go hand in hand.
[[Avaaz discovered that over 40 percent of the coronavirus-related misinformation it found
on Facebook. . .]]
[[Avaaz said that these fake social media posts -- everything from advice about bogus
medical remedies for the virus to claims that minority groups were less susceptible to
infection -- had been shared, collectively, 1.7 million times on Facebook in six
languages]]
[[Avaaz tracked 104 claims debunked by fact-checkers to see how quickly they were removed
from the platform]]
" If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle blower" to allow hearsay evidence
that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the Western world that still makes it okay
to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot about Horowitz and his IG report
already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks for the laugh."
No laughing matter. The IG position is obviously politicized. It may be a surprise to you,
but many police forces have an internal investigation unit that has extremely wide powers
that. go far beyond those available in ordinary investigation. The staff of such units are a
rare and disliked breed and the units are managed by the natural enemies of the police -
criminal lawyers.
Given that I've seen what these units do here, I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others
were not apprehended and charged very quickly.
Jim, thank you for the further AVAAZ info. Call me gob-smacked. Hope the investigative media picks up this thread. Seymour Hersh, are
you listening? AVAAZ felt sinister during the Benghazi days - also reacll some connections
with Samantha Power and Susan Rice - Barry's Girls.
Maybe mistress Antonia Staats was on a mission; and not just being a scofflaw mistress? In
fact is she trying out to be the new S.P.E.C.T.R.E Bond Girl?
IG's are no surprise to me nor the politicalization, such as Baltimore and Chicago, cities
run by the same political party for decades. Or the "intelligence community" IG, who changed
to rules to allow the scam of Schiff's supersecret whistleblower fraud to go forward. But
then you probably forgot that guy like you did Horowitz.
"I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others were not apprehended and charged ...." Larry insists that will happen. I'm not holding my breath.
Yep. The Southern firewall is such an absurd phenomenon. Use a bunch of states that will
not influence the general election to winnow the candidates in the primary election.
Same
thing in reverse with California -- IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT SANDERS WON CALIFORNIA because
California is going to vote blue in the fall.
If the Democrats want to win (which is not a foregone conclusion), then they need to
structure the primaries around the swing states.
"... Booker played a character (they all do, but some are polished versions of themselves) for so long, I'm not sure he is real. He played Obama, the servant of the men in suits, before Obama but less cool. ..."
Booker played a character (they all do, but some are polished versions of themselves) for
so long, I'm not sure he is real. He played Obama, the servant of the men in suits, before
Obama but less cool. I haven't watched "Streetfight" in ages, but he had the vibe of a Booker
T Washington follower if there was more than a character there.
Adolph Reed was clearly referring to Obama way back in 1997, but Booker fit most of the
description of a "new black" politician.
The only difference between Obama and Trump is their inside v. outside strategy. Obama was third-generation dynastic CIA
nomenklatura, and after his early misstep of promising to obey the supreme law of the land on torture, Obama took CIA direction
without demur, up to and including the crime of aggression of TIMBER SYCAMORE.
Trump, by contrast, follows the Nixon template, attempting to replace CIA focal points surrounding himself with “loyalists.”
When Nixon did it, CIA cadres leveled the same charge.
But Nixon put Schlesinger in as DCI to extract the crown jewels and shitcan a bunch of the worst criminals. Carter took the
outsider’s path too.
Nixon was purged in the CIA’s bloodless Watergate coup; Carter was ousted by CIA’s October Surprise. We should consider
whether COVID-19 collateral damage will be used to discredit Trump, who evidently has less workplace discretion than a
McDonald’s fry cook. At a key juncture of the outbreak CIA frogmarched Trump through the synthetic crisis of the Soleimani
assassination.
So of course the government is criminal. It was chartered as a criminal enterprise at inception in Sction 202, 73 years ago.
In the resulting kleptocracy, IGs perform a superfluous function. And every CIA inspector general is paid specifically to be a
criminal scumbag. The IG reviewing CIA’s most open-and-shut crime against humanity, its torture gulag, criticized it because it
didn’t work, intently ignoring the supreme law of the land that says nothing justifies torture.
So let’s not get all verklempt about some IGs. IGs are nothing but a Gehlen-type apparatus generating legal pretexts for
manifestly illegal acts. Fuck em if they can’t take a joke.
"... Authored by Sara Carter via SaraACarter.com, ..."
"... "Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." ..."
"... , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian Intelligence Services) ..."
Systemic FBI Effort To Legitimize Steele and Use His Information To Target POTUS
Newly declassified footnotes from Department of Justice Inspector General
Michael Horowitz's December FBI report reveals that senior Obama officials, including
members of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team knew the dossier compiled by a former British spy
during the 2016 election was Russian disinformation to target President Donald Trump.
Further, the partially declassified footnotes reveal that those senior intelligence
officials were aware of the disinformation when they included the dossier in the Obama
administration's Intelligence Communities Assessment (ICA).
As important, the footnotes reveal that there had been a request to validate information
collected by British spy Christopher
Steele as far back as 2015, and that there was concern among members of the FBI and
intelligence community about his reliability. Those concerns were brushed aside by members of
the Crossfire Hurricane team in their pursuit against the Trump campaign officials, according
to sources who spoke to this reporter and the footnotes.
The explosive footnotes were partially declassified and made public Wednesday, after a
lengthy review by the Director of National Intelligence Richard
Grenell's office. Grenell sent the letter Wednesday releasing the documents to Sen. Chuck
Grassley, R-Iowa and Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisconsin, both who requested the
declassification.
"Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant
Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." Grenell
consulted with DOJ Attorney General William Barr on the declassification of the
documents.
Grassley and Johnson released a statement late Wednesday stating "as we can see from these
now-declassified footnotes in the IG's report, Russian intelligence was aware of the dossier
before the FBI even began its investigation and the FBI had reports in hand that their central
piece of evidence was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation."
"Thanks to Attorney General Barr's and Acting Director Grenell's declassification of the
footnotes, we know the FBI's justification to target an American Citizen was riddled with
significant flaws," the Senator stated. "Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team did
what neither the FBI nor Special Counsel Mueller cared to do: examine and investigate
corruption at the FBI, the sources of the Steele dossier, how it was disseminated, and
reporting that it contained Russian disinformation."
The Footnotes
A U.S. Official familiar with the investigation into the FBI told this reporter that the
footnotes "clearly show that the FBI team was or should have had been aware that the Russian
Intelligence Services was trying to influence Steele's reporting in the summer of 2016, and
that there were some preferences for Hillary; and that this RIS [Russian Intelligence Services]
sourced information being fed to Steele was designed to hurt Trump."
The official noted these new revelations also "undermines the ICA on Russian Interference
and the intent to help Trump. It undermines the FISA warrants and there should not have been a
Mueller investigation."
The footnotes also reveal a startling fact that go against Brennan's assessment that Russia
was vying for Trump, when in fact, the Russians appeared to be hopeful of a Clinton
presidency.
"The FBI received information in June, 2017 which revealed that, among other things, there
were personal and business ties between the sub-source and Steele's Primary Sub-source,
contacts between the sub-source and an individual in the Russian Presidential Administration
in June/July 2016 [redacted] and the sub source voicing strong support for candidate Clinton
in the 2016 U.S. election. The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us that the FBI did not have a
Section 702 vicarage on any other Steele sub-source."
Steele's Lies
The complete four pages of the partially redacted footnotes paint a clear picture of the
alleged malfeasance committed by former FBI Director James Comey, former DNI James Clapper and
former CIA Director John Brennan, who were all aware of the concerns regarding the information
supplied by former British spy Christopher Steele in the dossier. Steele, who was hired by the
private embattled research firm Fusion GPS, was paid for his work through the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Democratic National Committee. The FBI also paid for Steele's work before ending
its confidential source relationship with him but then used Obama DOJ Official Bruce Ohr as a
go between to continue obtaining information from the former spy.
In footnote 205, for instance, payment documents show that Steele lied about not being a
Confidential Human Source.
"During his time as an FBI CHS, Steele received a total of $95,000 from the FBI," the
footnote states. "We reviewed the FBI paperwork for those payments, each of which required
Steele's Signed acknowledgement. On each document, of which there were eight, was the caption
'CHS payment' and 'CHS Payment Name.' A signature page was missing for one of the
payments."
Footnote 350
In footnote 350, Horowitz describes the questionable Russian disinformation and the FBI's
reliance on the information to target the Trump campaign as an attempt to build a narrative
that campaign officials colluded with Russia. Further, the timeline reveals that Comey, Brennan
and Clapper were aware of the disinformation by Russian intelligence when they briefed then
President-elect Trump in January, 2017 on the Steele dossier.
"[redacted] In addition to the information in Steele's Delta file documenting Steele's
frequent contacts with representatives for multiple Russian oligarchs, we identified
reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received from [redacted] indicating the potential for
Russian disinformation influencing Steele' election reporting," stated the partially
declassified footnote 350. "A January 12, 2017 report relayed information from [redacted]
outlining an inaccuracy in a limited subset of Steele's reporting about the activities of
Michael Cohen. The [redacted] stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of
Steele's reporting and assessed that the referenced subset was part of a Russian
disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.
A second report from the same [redacted] five days later stated that a person named in the
limited subset of Steele's reporting had denied representations in the reporting and the
[redacted] assessed that the person's denials were truthful. A USIC report dated February 27,
2017, contained information about an individual with reported connections to Trump and Russia
who claimed that the public reporting about the details of Trump's sexual activities in Moscow
during a trip in 2013 were false , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian
Intelligence Services) 'infiltrate[ing] a source into the network' of a [redacted] who
compiled a dossier of that individual on Trump's activities. The [redacted] noted that it had
no information indicating that the individual had special access to RIS activities or
information," according to the partially declassified footnote.
Looming Questions
Another concern regarding Steele's unusual activity is found in footnote 210, which states
"as we discuss in Chapter Six, members of the Crossfire Hurricane Team were unaware of Steele's
connections to Russian Oligarch 1."
The question remains that "Steele's unusual activity with 10 oligarch's led the FBI to seek
a validation review in 2015 but one was not started until 2017," said the U.S. Official to this
reporter. "Why not? Was Crossfire Hurricane aware of these concerns? Was the court made aware
of these concerns? Didn't the numerous notes about sub sources and sources having links or
close ties to Russian intelligence so why didn't this set off alarm bells?"
More alarming, it's clear, Supervisory Intelligence Agent Jonathan Moffa says in June 17,
that he was not aware of reports that Russian Intelligence Services was aware of Steele's
election reporting and influence efforts.
"However, he should have been given the reporting by UCIS" which the U.S. Official says,
goes back to summer 2016.
Footnote 342 makes it clear that "in late January, 2017, a member of the Crossfire Hurricane
team received information [redacted] that RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] may have targeted
Orbis."
AMERICA-HYSTERICA. US Attorney General
Barr just said the Russia collusion probe was a travesty, had no basis and was intended to
sabotage Trump . All true of course. May we take this as a sign that at last (at last!)
Durham is ready to go with indictments? Or will it prove to be another false alarm? There's
certainly a lot to reveal: A recent
investigation showed that every FISA application (warrant to spy on US citizens) examined
had egregious deficiencies. It's not just Trump.
MEANINGLESSNESS. Remember the Steele dossier? Now it's being spun as Russian
disinformation . So we're now supposed to believe that Putin smeared Trump because he
really wanted Clinton to win? Gosh, that Putin guy is so clever that it's impossible to figure
out what he's doing!
A lot of illusions. Democratic Party is a party of neoliberal billionaires and want to remains this way. They will never
reform. They are a part of Pepsi-Cola scam -- the party duopoly in the USA.
In ancient Greek dramas, a deus ex machina would sometimes be enacted; a god, wheeled in on
a mechanical contraption, would appear upon the stage and go on to set an otherwise intractable
situation right.
Notable quotes:
"... The Republican Party was already unspeakably odious before Trump waddled into the scene, but, by giving a large and growing segment of its base – its mainly male, mainly rural, mainly geezerly, poorly educated, socially dislocated and economically stressed component -- permission to give their most noxious impulses free rein, Trump has turned the Republican Party into a personality cult for him to manipulate as he sees fit. ..."
"... Meanwhile, playing on their rank opportunism and mindless disregard of values and principles, he has brought the God Squad, rightwing Christian evangelicals and their Jewish counterparts, into the Trumpian fold, along with many of the most base and shamelessly venal plutocrats and plutocrat wannabes in creation. ..."
"... Biden is a doofus who, even in his prime, could actually make the Clintons look good. That was surely one of the reasons why Barack Obama picked him to be his running mate; the future President Drone and Deporter-in-Chief, anticipating taking up where Bill Clinton left off, wanted to look good too. ..."
"... ["Kakistocracy," for those who still don't know, is an old word that has lately become timely. It means: rule of the worst, the most vile, corrupt, and incompetent.] ..."
"... One would think that mainstream Democrats would have learned something from 2016 about the wisdom of fielding a stalwart of the ancien régime , a "moderate" -- she called herself a "progressive pragmatist" – against a buffoonish, sociopathic liar, a reality TV conman, who promises "to drain the swamp." ..."
"... There is a certain irony in what Democrats are now saying about that prospect, now that, barring a miracle, Biden is the presumptive nominee. They are saying just what people were saying about Trump when his more thoughtful supporters were starting to anticipate and then to experience voters' remorse – that, however awful he may be, however much out of his depth in the Oval Office, "the adults in the room" will be there to keep him in line. ..."
"... By almost any relevant standard, Franken was a far better Senator than Biden or, for that matter, than nearly every other Democratic Senator, Gillibrand included. By almost any relevant standard, Biden, even in his prime, was a dunce. But no matter. Anything for banality's sake; anything not to field a candidate worth supporting. ..."
"... In ancient Greek dramas, a deus ex machina would sometimes be enacted; a god, wheeled in on a mechanical contraption, would appear upon the stage and go on to set an otherwise intractable situation right. ..."
"... Obama's Original Sin, and also Eric Holder's, was to let the war criminals in the upper echelon of the Bush administration off scot-free. I fear that just as Trump takes his cues from Fox News, Biden will be taking his from what Obama did a dozen years ago. ..."
"... Back then, Obama said that he wanted "to look forward," to let bygones be bygone. Because that is precisely what he did, the Bush-Cheney perpetual war regime became his own. It is still with us too, and Biden is no doubt itching to take up where his Best Friend Forever left off. ..."
"... Were that to come to pass, the countless, legally actionable crimes that Trump and his kakistocratic minions have committed, now including the depraved indifference to human life and the menace to public health that Trump has been exhibiting daily since the corvid-19 crisis broke, would go unpunished, setting an even worse precedent than the one set by Obama. ..."
Donald Trump is
a paradoxical creature. On the one hand, he resembles nothing so much as a dumbass teenage boy,
and, on the other, a barfly, long in the tooth and good for nothing but mouthing off.
This from an obese septuagenarian who doesn't drink and who, unlike Richard Nixon, his only
near rival in political depravity, is as unconflicted and intellectually shallow as they
come.
Nixon was good at many things. In politics, Trump is good at only two.
One is using corporate media to his own advantage. To be sure, Trump has Fox News and talk
radio, propaganda assets Nixon could hardly have dreamed of, in his pocket, but they were in
place, dumbing down and otherwise doing harm, long before he came onto the scene. What Trump
has managed to do is to get the ostensibly respectable cable networks, CNN and MSNBC, to offer
him their platforms for free.
This, as much as Hillary Clinton's politics and her failures as a candidate, helped him get
elected in 2016. It is helping him stay afloat now, even as the utter incompetence of his
handling of the on-going covid-19 crisis that he did so much to exacerbate becomes stunningly
clear to anyone not hellbent on denying the obvious.
CNN's and MSNBC's hatred of the Donald is as palpable as it is justified, and yet he plays
them like a fiddle.
The other thing he is good at is turning the GOP into an instrument of his will.
The Republican Party was already unspeakably odious before Trump waddled into the scene,
but, by giving a large and growing segment of its base – its mainly male, mainly rural,
mainly geezerly, poorly educated, socially dislocated and economically stressed component --
permission to give their most noxious impulses free rein, Trump has turned the Republican Party
into a personality cult for him to manipulate as he sees fit.
Meanwhile, playing on their rank opportunism and mindless disregard of values and
principles, he has brought the God Squad, rightwing Christian evangelicals and their Jewish
counterparts, into the Trumpian fold, along with many of the most base and shamelessly venal
plutocrats and plutocrat wannabes in creation.
And what does the other duopoly party offer in response? Joe Biden. Seriously.
Biden is a doofus who, even in his prime, could actually make the Clintons look good. That was surely one of the reasons why Barack Obama picked him to be his running mate; the
future President Drone and Deporter-in-Chief, anticipating taking up where Bill Clinton left
off, wanted to look good too.
Another reason was to reassure Wall Street. They had already vetted him out the wazoo, but
with serious money involved, they were still a tad worried. Team Obama therefore felt it
expedient to set their minds at ease. Biden on the ticket would seal the deal.
In those bygone days of yesteryear, Democratic Party honchos still knew what they had to do
to win elections that weren't handed to them on a silver platter. Where, then, are they now, those savvy Party grandees? And why don't their paymasters
intervene? Why are they being so stupid?
Whatever the answer, it hasn't made them too stupid to hold onto their power.
Sad to say, though, that they were still clever enough to realize that Sanders, and maybe
Elizabeth Warren as well, were everything they didn't want Obama to be. And so, aided and
abetted by CNN and MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR and the whole motley
mess of "liberal" corporate media, they quashed their candidacies well.
Sadder still, after the powers that be pulled off the South Carolina and Super Tuesday
fiascos and then promptly got the other "moderates" to throw in the towel all at once, it
became clear that the old régime would win again.
All doubts about that ended when the pandemic made door to door canvassing, rallies and
nearly all the other usual forms of electoral politicking impossible. Almost overnight, the
only two candidates in the Democratic field worth taking seriously had no chance at all of
making the Democratic Party anything more than a lesser evil. The bad guys had won.
But still the question remains: why are the winners being so stupid?
Even if all they want is a colorless stooge whose only virtue is that he is not Trump, or
Pence or any of the other kakistocrats in the Trumpian fold, surely they could at least do
better than taking on the Trumpian juggernaut with a second-rate dodo leading the charge.
["Kakistocracy," for those who still don't know, is an old word that has lately become
timely. It means: rule of the worst, the most vile, corrupt, and incompetent.]
In a saner political environment, or even in the one we knew before Clinton, the Queen of
Ineptitude, blew a sure thing in 2016, Trump and his minions could be counted on to defeat
themselves.
In the actual world, the chances are good that this will still be the case. Corporate media
give Trump precious airtime, but they also display his and his administration's mind-boggling
awfulness day by day.
With the economy collapsing and the corpses piling high, and with rural America about to
feel the pain along with the urban centers, it is hard to imagine that at least some of the
lost souls in the Trump cult won't see the light and defect.
But Democrats these days are born to lose; it might as well be in their genes.
Therefore, like the Wall Street financiers in 2008 whose minds were set at ease when Obama
put Biden on the ticket, voters who get what Trump is about could still use some
reassurance.
Trump may advertise his awfulness with every breath he takes, but with our electoral
institutions being what they are, and with his base still standing by their man, the chances
that Democrats will blow it again can seem greater than trivial.
One would think that mainstream Democrats would have learned something from 2016 about the
wisdom of fielding a stalwart of the ancien régime , a "moderate" -- she called herself
a "progressive pragmatist" – against a buffoonish, sociopathic liar, a reality TV conman,
who promises "to drain the swamp."
But leave it to Democrats and Democratic voters to draw precisely the wrong lesson from that
debacle. Leave it to them to field a candidate who is even worse than Clinton this time
around.
Needless to say, better a President Biden than a President Trump; better by far. But even
befuddled moderates should be able to figure out that a Biden presidency will be a disaster in
its own right.
There is a certain irony in what Democrats are now saying about that prospect, now that,
barring a miracle, Biden is the presumptive nominee. They are saying just what people were
saying about Trump when his more thoughtful supporters were starting to anticipate and then to
experience voters' remorse – that, however awful he may be, however much out of his depth
in the Oval Office, "the adults in the room" will be there to keep him in line.
That by running Biden, they are squandering an historically unprecedent opportunity to make
basic, urgently needed, structural changes in the economy and society, and to transform the
Democratic Party, presently part of the problem, into a force for genuine progressive change,
at least to the extent that it was in the more radical phases of the New Deal and then later
before the Vietnam War undid the Great Society, doesn't seem to matter to a large segment of
the Democratic electorate – not yet, anyway.
If they have qualms, they comfort themselves by telling themselves that, unlike Trump, Biden
will appoint good people to run the show. And when that thought doesn't quite suffice, the
default position seems to be that at least he, like Obama, will be a No Drama president, which
is, they claim, just what the country now needs.
These wrong-headed but cheery bromides are not entirely without merit.
With Trump gone and Democrats eager to take over from the kakistocrats he empowered, the
national government probably will become not exactly "great again," it never was even close to
that, but at least not stunningly abominable.
And although Biden, unlike Sanders and Warren, has hardly comported himself in a way that
suggests competency or, for that matter, a fully functional mind, and although Andrew Cuomo and
other governors have far outshined him since the corvid-19 plague erupted, at least he is not a
narcissist, a sociopath, or a barely constrainable maniac.
But what's wrong with Democrats? Why don't they dump him while they still can?
Even Kirstin Gillibrand, scourge of womanizers who like Al Franken couldn't keep his hands
enough to himself, seems OK with Joe, notwithstanding the fact that he is credibly accused of
having done far worse than Franken ever did.
By almost any relevant standard, Franken was a far better Senator than Biden or, for that
matter, than nearly every other Democratic Senator, Gillibrand included. By almost any relevant
standard, Biden, even in his prime, was a dunce. But no matter. Anything for banality's sake;
anything not to field a candidate worth supporting.
And at a time when "the homeland," as we now call it, is facing a crisis the likes of which
has not been seen on these shores for more than a hundred years, how can it still be that, for
so many Democratic voters, it is practically axiomatic that only a paragon of banality can
defeat the most inept and villainous president that the United States has ever had to
endure?
The Democratic establishment is incapable of redemption. They have demonstrated time and
again that they will do anything to maintain their own power, and the power of the forces they
represent. That would be the obscenely rich; the beneficiaries of an increasingly inegalitarian
distribution of income and wealth that, regardless the intentions of a few kindly billionaires,
puts nearly everything on earth that is worth saving in mortal jeopardy.
But Trump is their enemy too. They could at least stop helping him out to the extent that
they are.
Lately, for whatever it's worth, Democratic Party honchos have been floating the idea of
running Warren for Vice President. I suspect that they are just blowing air, and I would be
surprised and more than a little disappointed in her if she would go along with that; I'd
expect her to have more integrity. But some good come of that possibility.
After all, while there is death and the twenty-fifth amendment there is hope. Not much,
though; not anyway in this "one nation under (Mike Pence's) God."
I, for one, have been waiting for nearly four years for cholesterol and a sedentary
lifestyle to relieve us of the clear and present danger we face. Now there is the corona virus
as well. But here we are. I would say, though, that were the Donald to follow the lead of his
British counterpart and soul-mate, Boris Johnson, and then go one step beyond, I might almost
start believing in that (alleged) divinity.
In ancient Greek dramas, a deus ex machina would sometimes be enacted; a god, wheeled in on
a mechanical contraption, would appear upon the stage and go on to set an otherwise intractable
situation right.
It is too late now for Sanders and probably for Warren as well, even if she does become
Biden's running mate. It probably always was; the fix was in too deep. What those two wanted to
do was obviously better than any of the moderates' nostrums. But the dodos calling the shots
would not abide Democrats doing the right thing or even some pale semblance of it. Those
bastardly dodos won.
But, even if only out of self-interest, and also in order to make the demise of Trump and
Trumpism more likely than it already is, they surely ought to be able to bring themselves to
pull off something like a deus ex machina trick -- by dumping the doofus for another
"moderate," one less retrograde, less risible, and less likely to inspire potential anti-Trump
voters to stay home.
They could put Biden back out to pasture where he so plainly belongs. As Trump might say
"what have they got to lose?" Of course, when Trump says it, the answer is always "everything."
In this case, it would be "nothing at all."
But I wouldn't hold my breath. It is more likely by many orders of magnitude that we will
have a Clintonesque, Obama-inflected, déja vu all over again in our future.
But even with the Forces of Darkness running the Democratic show, the forty or fifty percent
of Democratic voters who favored Sanders or Warren still have leverage over where the
Democratic Party goes.
They could and should use it to push Biden and the Democratic Party establishment as far to
the left as they can.
They should also insist on at least two things.
The first is obviously in the interest of all Democrats, the ones who are, for whatever
reason, still wedded to the status quo. as well as those who understand the need to transform
the lesser evil party fundamentally.
That would be to defeat Republican efforts at voter suppression. It is plain as can be
– so plain that even Trump has said as much – that if the black, brown, and youth
votes are not suppressed, Republicans would have hardly any chance of electing anybody, much
less Trump himself.
Anyone paying attention to the April 7 primary election in Wisconsin, conducted at great
peril to voters in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic, could hardly fail to understand how
important this is.
Republican lawmakers in the heavily gerrymandered and therefore Republican led Wisconsin
state legislature, and so-called "conservative" but actually radical rightwing Republican
judges in the Wisconsin and then the U.S. Supreme Courts put peoples', mainly black and brown
peoples', lives at risk in order to secure the electoral victory of one Dan Kelly, a retrograde
state Supreme Court Justice whom they can count on to ease their way.
In light of that, who knows what mischief Trump and the cult around him have in store for
November. The problem is especially acute now that, thanks to the machinations of Mitch
McConnell, arguably the most malign figure in the entire Trumpian firmament, the judicial
system is so profoundly compromised.
Congressional Democrats must therefore, first and foremost, guarantee the right to vote for
everybody eligible to vote. This means, among other things, making voting by mail an option
that even troglodyte Republican judges cannot refuse to honor.
Surely, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the other party leaders can do that much.
If they have the sense they were born with, they will do everything in their power to make
the November election a referendum on Trump. If it is, Trump will surely lose.
On the other hand, if it devolves into a choice between him and Biden, Trump will only just
probably lose, the probability depending on how the corovid-19 virus is doing by then, the
state of the economy, and the extent to which the good citizens of the United States of Amnesia
keep in mind even just a tiny fraction of all the harm that the Trump presidency has done.
In any event, the less Biden is exposed to the public, the more he stays bunkered down in
Wilmington or wherever he has been hiding out, the better. The more voters see him as the only
feasible alternative to Trump, the more electable he will be. The more they reflect on his
merits, the more reason there is for concern.
The other "non-negotiable demand" should be to insist on holding Trump and his factotums
accountable. That will require riding herd over the doofus because, having attached himself to
Obama's "legacy," letting it all go has become his default position.
Obama's Original Sin, and also Eric Holder's, was to let the war criminals in the upper
echelon of the Bush administration off scot-free. I fear that just as Trump takes his cues from
Fox News, Biden will be taking his from what Obama did a dozen years ago.
Back then, Obama said that he wanted "to look forward," to let bygones be bygone. Because
that is precisely what he did, the Bush-Cheney perpetual war regime became his own. It is still
with us too, and Biden is no doubt itching to take up where his Best Friend Forever left
off.
Does anyone doubt that, left to his own devices, a President Biden would repeat Obama's and
Holden's mistake? Banality and the absence of drama are his trump card, after all; letting
bygones be bygone is his thing.
Were that to come to pass, the countless, legally actionable crimes that Trump and his
kakistocratic minions have committed, now including the depraved indifference to human life and
the menace to public health that Trump has been exhibiting daily since the corvid-19 crisis
broke, would go unpunished, setting an even worse precedent than the one set by Obama.
When that comes back to haunt us, as it surely will with Biden continuing the political line
that made Trumpism all but inevitable, it won't be pretty. With the bar now set so low, the
next demagogue in the Trumpian role is likely to be a lot smarter and more capable than Trump,
and therefore a lot more dangerous.
Surely, even the "moderates" in the House and Senate Democratic caucuses could at least
force the dodo they are inflicting upon us to pre-commit, as it were, not to stoop so low as to
give get-out-of-jail-free cards to the likes of Trump, his family and inner circle, and the
most criminal of the base and servile sycophants he has inflicted upon us.
The judgment of history is sure, but it is inevitably slow in coming, and the time for
guarantees that Trump et. al . will be held to account, just as soon as Trump vacates the
premises at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is now.
If a Democratic president isn't good even for that, then, when the judgment of history comes
down on the Democratic Party establishment too, as it surely will, they will have a lot more to
answer for than squandering a chance to make up for the neoliberal turn their party has been on
since the Jimmy Carter days, and for all the many other post-Watergate ways that it has been
making life better for the rich and heinous and worse for the working class.
President Trump on Friday fired the intelligence community inspector general, Michael
Atkinson, who brought a hearsay whistleblower complaint to Congressional Democrats, kicking off
President Trump's impeachment.
Atkinson's closed-door testimony was so troubling to House Republicans that they launched an
investigation into his role into what President Trump and his allies coined the 'impeachment
hoax.'
Ranking member of the House Intelligence Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-CA) told
SarahCarter.com that transcripts of Atkinson's secret testimony would expose that
he either lied or needs to make corrections to his statements to lawmakers.
Trump notified the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of his decision to fire
Atkinson, according to
Politico , citing two congressional officials and a copy of a letter
dated April 3.
"This is to advise that I am exercising my power as president to remove from office the
inspector general of the intelligence community, effective 30 days from today," wrote Trump,
who added that he "no longer" has the fullest confidence in Atkinson.
"As is the case with regard to other positions where I, as president, have the power of
appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is vital that I have the
fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Trump wrote. "That is no
longer the case with regard to this inspector general."
Trump knocked Atkinson on January, noting that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam
Schiff's (D-CA) decision to withhold Atkinson's testimony was a "major problem."
....the Ukraine Hoax that became the Impeachment Scam. Must get the ICIG answers by Friday
because this is the guy who lit the fuse. So if he wants to clear his name, prove that his
office is indeed incompetent." @DevinNunes @MariaBartiromo @FoxNews
The ICIG never wanted proof!
Democrats had a fit at the news, with Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark
Warner (D-VA) calling Atkinson's firing "unconscionable" while accusing Trump (with a straight
face?) of an ongoing effort to politicize intelligence.
"In the midst of a national emergency, it is unconscionable that the president is once again
attempting to undermine the integrity of the intelligence community by firing yet another
intelligence official simply for doing his job," wrote Warner in a statement.
Warner's House counterpart, Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) called
Atkinson's firing "retribution" in the "dead of night" - adding that it's "yet another blatant
attempt by the president to gut the independence of the intelligence community and retaliate
against those who dare to expose presidential wrongdoing."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck 'six ways from Sunday' Schumer (D-NY) said Atkinson's firing
was evidence that Trump "fires people for telling the truth," according to Politico .
Whistleblower lawyer and
Disneyland aficionado Mark Zaid - who once bragged about getting
security clearances for pedophiles , called the firing "delayed retaliatory action" for
Atkinson's "proper handling of a whistleblower complaint."
"This action is disgraceful and undermines the integrity of the whistleblower system," said
Zaid. "It is time GOP members of the Senate stand up for the rule of law and speak out against
this president."
The whistleblower complaint effectively kicked off the House's impeachment inquiry, which
began in late September amid allegations that Trump had solicited foreign interference in the
2020 election when he asked Ukraine's president to investigate his political opponents,
including Joe Biden.
Atkinson opposed the decision by then-acting director of national intelligence Joseph
Maguire to withhold the whistleblower complaint from the House and Senate intelligence
committees -- in particular, Maguire's decision to seek guidance on the issue from the
Justice Department, rather than turn it over to Congress as required by law. -
Politico
To learn more about Atkinson, read
here and
here .
When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The
Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and
less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held
hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division
that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US
military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting.
Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related
to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by
the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It
was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out
of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's
ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally
supporting the war.
During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying
claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets
as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits
the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during
the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was
Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist
fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden
Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple,
stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight
them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational
sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs
the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US,
you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media
and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the
here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians
continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations
such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over
the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e.
Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a
known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in
the west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions
or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria
by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In
Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops
sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the
constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented
firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in
the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars
over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative
by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative
does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event.
It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information
is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict,
and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another.
Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh
'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the
narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning
in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot
down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook
in a standard setting the narrative scenario.
The neocons trying to control Trump are going to have a hard time this year because of the
election. Trump knows his people voted for him because of his promises to get the troops back
home. Of course the neocons want to build up more and more troops in Iraq or even split Iraq
into 3 different countries. The Iraqi and Iranian leaders with the Syrians to a lesser degree
will try to take advantage of Trump's dilemma. The Kurds are involved also. This is all
explored by Pam Ho
How Much Do You Suck (To lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein)
- The US knows it "influence" is waning and tries to "carve out" a sunni "rump state" in
North-West Iraq. First the US fights ISIS in that same area/region from the year 2014 onwards
and now they are supposed to fight in FAVOUR of the sunnis/ISIS ?
"US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes"
"If Iraqis were there and if Iraqi military forces were there, I would say it's probably
not a good idea to position yourself with Kataib Hezbollah in the wake of a strike that
killed Americans and coalition members," he told a Pentagon news briefing."
Despite Trump the Iraq policy transcends his administration and will continue in some form in
the future. There will be a continued presence in some form and in some part of the country.
Our beloved ally in the region demands our presence.
They smartly keep the presence small with no draft remembering that is what took them out
of Nam. An angry draft worthy populace, a counter culture disillusioned with the murder of
their liberal anti war leadership by the state, and ample media coverage of the war
carnage.
All of that is long gone, and even with the age of internet reporting the populace has
been bought off with entertainment, amazon, porn, and bullshit.
Parallel is IMO very interesting, Wehrmacht occupying Ukraine and US occupying Iraq. In
both cases there was minority that welcomed occupier with open arms, wanting to oppress
majority of own country folks due to earlier grievances. In both cases, invader didn't want
to bother with using that minority to own goals, as they saw them all as inferior race. And
invader was in both cases more interested in conquering more powerful neighbor to the
east.
Irony is that, if Nazi Germany/US didn't look at Ukraine/Iraq people as inferior race they
could use them for own goal to fight Russia/Iran. But, dumb as they are, they stuck all those
Ukrainians into camps(lot of them sympathizers to Germany/rabidly against Russia)/ disbanding
ex. Saddam's army and made kernel of future anti US force into region, not to mention Kurdish
question.
"Later on January 9, former Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi called on the United
States to dispatch a delegation to Baghdad tasked with formulating a mechanism for the
move.
According to a statement released by his office at the time, Abdul-Mahdi "requested that
delegates be sent to Iraq to set the mechanisms to implement the parliament's decision for
the secure withdrawal of (foreign) forces from Iraq" in a phone call with US Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo."
US in response moved to a few bases they intended to occupy and give the two finger salute
to Iraq. Trump threatened sanctions and theft of Iraq's oil money which is in the US.
Pentagon now moving patriots in.
Question to b @53: ... it was a non-binding resolution.
It's "non-binding" on USA only because the Prime Minister conducts foreign policy and
there's no current written basing agreement between Iraq and USA that can be terminated. The
resolution demands that the Prime Minister arrange for the departure of US troops.
The resolution is binding on the Prime Minister because it was a valid vote in
accordance with Iraqi Parliamentary procedure.
USA refused to discuss leaving Iraq and claimed that the Parliamentary vote was
"non-binding" because it was unrepresentative (USA got their Sunni and Kurd sympathizers to
boycott the vote). But Parliament still had a quorum, so the vote is legal and binding.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Is it enforceable?
USA/NATO are very unlikely to leaving willingly. We are seeing the start of a civil war in
Iraq because most Sunnis and Kurds support USA/NATO remaining while Shia want USA/NATO to
leave.
just start with the first lie and go from their... usa / uk lied the world into going to war
on iraq... and from their the lies just keep on getting stacked.. if you can't acknowledge
the first lie, you probably are incapable of recognizing all the other lies that have been
thrown on the same bullshit pile... one big pile of lies and bullshite - a specialty of the
exceptional country..
@ 63 question.. you like this usa style bullshit that buys politicians in iraq and when that
doesn't work, they go on to the next attempt at installing a politician willing to agree to
their bullshite? interesting bullshit concept of democracy if you ask me... everything has a
price tag and honour is something you can pick up at the grocery store... right..
"... The computer used to create the original Warren Document (dated 2008) was a US Government computer issued to the Obama Presidential
Transition Team by the General Services Administration. ..."
"... The Warren Document and the 1.DOC were created in the United States using Microsoft Word software (2007) that is registered
to the GSA. ..."
"... The author of both 1.doc and the PDF version is identified as "WARREN FLOOD." ..."
"... "Russian" fingerprints were deliberately inserted into the text and the meta data of "1.doc." ..."
"... This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren
Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show
they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as a GSA
product. ..."
"... If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? ..."
"... The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in
at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he hired
by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the attempted
coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress. ..."
"... There are other critical unanswered questions. Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to James come on July
26, 2016 about the the DNC hack. Lynch wrote concerning press reports that Russia attacked the DNC: ..."
"... A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood
and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the
FBI failed to do a proper investigation. ..."
"... Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody
registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record of this
registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url. ..."
"... It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received
by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us. ..."
Why does the name of Joe Biden's former Internet Technology guru, Warren Flood, appear in the meta data of documents posted on
the internet by Guccifer 2.0? In case you do not recall, Guccifer 2.0 was identified as someone tied to Russian intelligence who
played a direct role in stealing emails from John Podesta. The meta data in question indicates the name of the person who actually
copied the original document. We have this irrefutable fact in the documents unveiled by Guccifer 2.0--Warren Flood's name appears
prominently in the meta data of several documents attributed to "Guccifer 2.0." When this transpired, Flood was working as the CEO
of his own company, BRIGHT BLUE DATA. (brightbluedata.com). Was Flood tasked to masquerade as a Russian operative?
Give Flood some props if that is true--he fooled our Intelligence Community and the entire team of Mueller prosecutors into believing
that Guccifer was part of a Russian military intelligence cyber attack. But a careful examination of the documents shows that it
is highly unlikely that this was an official Russian cyber operation. Here's what the U.S. Intelligence Community wrote about Guccifer
2.0 in their very flawed January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about
his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0
interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in
June.
The laxity of the Intelligence Community in dealing with empirical evidence was matched by a disturbing lack of curiosity on the
part of the Mueller investigators and prosecutors. Here's the tall tale they spun about Guccifer 2.0:
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear") were
responsible for the breach. Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona Guccifer
2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based
server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including "some hundred
sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its
first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that
the GRU officers had searched for that day.
[Apelbaum note--According to Crowdstrike and Special Counsel Mueller, both were present, APT28 AKA "Fancy Bear" and APT29 AKA
"Cozy Bear".]
The claims by both the Intelligence Community and the Mueller team about Guccifer 2.0 are an astounding, incredible denial of
critical evidence pointing to a U.S. actor, not a Russian or Romanian. No one in this "august" group took the time to examine the
metadata on the documents posted by "Guccifer 2.0" to his website on June 15, 2016.
I wish I could claim credit for the following forensic analysis, but the honors are due to Yaacov Apelbaum. While there are many
documents in the Podesta haul that match the following pattern, this analysis focuses only on a document originally created by the
DNC's Director of Research, Lauren Dillon. This document is the Trump Opposition Report document.
According to Apelbaum , the Trump Opposition
Report document, which was "published" by Guccifer 2.0, shows clear evidence of digital manipulation:
A US based user (hereafter referred to as G2 ) operating initially from the West coast and then, subsequently, from the East
coast, changes the MS Word 2007 and Operating System language settings to Russian.
G2 opens and saves a document with the file name, "12192015 Trump Report - for dist-4.docx". The document bears the title,
"Donald Trump Report" (which was originally composed by Lauren Dillon aka DILLON REPORT) as an RTF file and opens it again.
G2 opens a second document that was attached to an email sent on December 21, 2008 to John Podesta from [email protected].
This WORD document lists prospective nominees for posts in the Department of Agriculture for the upcoming Obama Administration.
It was generated by User--Warren Flood--on a computer registered to the General Services Administration (aka GSA) named "Slate_-_Domestic_-_USDA_-_2008-12-20-3.doc",
which was kept by Podesta on his private Gmail account. (I refer to this as the "WARREN DOCUMENT" in this analysis.)
G2 deletes the content of the 2008 Warren Document and saves the empty file as a RTF, and opens it again.
G2 copies the content of the 'Dillon Report' (which is an RTF document) and pastes it into the 2008 Warren Document template,
i.e. the empty RTF document.
G2 user makes several modifications to the content of this document. For example, the Warren Document contained the watermark--"CONFIDENTIAL
DRAFT". G2 deleted the word "DRAFT" but kept the "CONFIDENTIAL" watermark.
G2 saves this document into a file called "1.doc". This document now contains the text of the original Lauren Dillon "Donald
Trump Report" document, but also contains Russian language URL links that generate error messages.
G2's 1.DOC (the Word version of the document) shows the following meta data authors:
Created at 6/15/2016 at 1:38pm by "WARREN FLOOD"
Last Modified at 6/15/2016 at 1:45pm by "Феликс Эдмундович" (Felix Edmundovich, the first and middle name of Dzerzhinsky,
the creator of the predecessor of the KGB. It is assumed the Felix Edmundovich refers to Dzerzhinsky.)
G2 also produces a pdf version of this document almost four hours later. It is created at 6/15/201`6 at 5:54:15pm by "WARREN
FLOOD."
G2 first publishes "1.doc" to various media outlets and then uploads a copy to the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress website (which is
hosted in the United States).
There are several critical facts from the metadata that destroy the claim that Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian or a Russian.
The computer used to create the original Warren Document (dated 2008) was a US Government computer issued to the Obama
Presidential Transition Team by the General Services Administration.
The Warren Document and the 1.DOC were created in the United States using Microsoft Word software (2007) that is registered
to the GSA.
The author of both 1.doc and the PDF version is identified as "WARREN FLOOD."
The copy of "1.doc" was uploaded to a server hosted in the United States.
"Russian" fingerprints were deliberately inserted into the text and the meta data of "1.doc."
This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren
Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show
they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as
a GSA product.
If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? A covert
cyber operation is no different from a conventional human covert operation, which means the first and guiding principle is to not
leave any fingerprints that would point to the origin of the operation. In other words, you do not mistakenly leave flagrant Russian
fingerprints in the document text or metadata. A good cyber spy also will not use computers and servers based in the United States
and then claim it is the work of a hacker ostensibly in Romania.
None of the Russians indicted by Mueller in his case stand accused of doing the Russian hacking while physically in the United
States. No intelligence or evidence has been cited to indicate that the Russians stole a U.S. Government computer or used a GSA supplied
copy of Microsoft Word to produce the G2 documents.
The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in
at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he
hired by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the
attempted coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress.
If foreign intelligence agencies are attempting to undermine that process, the U.S. government should treat such efforts even
more seriously than standard espionage. These types ofcyberattacks are significant and pernicious crimes. Our government must do
all that it can to stop such attacks and to seek justice for the attacks that have already occurred.
We are writing to request more information on this cyberattack in particular and more information in general on how the Justice
Department, FBI, and NCIJTF attempt to prevent and punish these types ofcyberattacks. Accordingly, please respond to the following
by August 9, 2016:
When did the Department of Justice, FBI, and NCIJTF first learn of the DNC hack? Was the government aware ofthe intrusion
prior to the media reporting it?
Has the FBI deployed its Cyber Action Team to determine who hacked the DNC?
Has the FBI determined whether the Russian government, or any other foreign
government, was involved in the hack?
In general, what actions, if any, do the Justice Department, FBI, and NCIJTF take to prevent cyberattacks on non-governmental
political organizations in the U.S., such as campaigns and political parties? Does the government consult or otherwise communicate
with the organizations to inform them ofpotential threats, relay best practices, or inform them ofdetected cyber intrusions.
Does the Justice Department believe that existing statutes provide an adequate basis for addressing hacking crimes of this
nature, in which foreign governments hack seemingly in order to affect our electoral processes?
So far no document from Comey to Lynch has been made available to the public detailing the FBI's response to Lynch's questions.
Why was the Cyber Action Team not deployed to determine who hacked the DNC? A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should
have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke
the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the FBI failed to do a proper investigation.
Of course sleepy Joe was in on the overall RussiaGate operation. And now another reasonable question by sleuth extraordinaire
will fall into the memory hole b/c no one who has the authority and the power in DC is ever going to address, let alone, clean
up and hold accountable any who created this awful mess.
Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody
registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record
of this registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url.
What's troubling to me is that even the most simplest investigative acts to find answers never seems to happen. Instead, more
than three years later we're playing 'Whodunit.'
It's been over 3 years now and if we had a truly functioning intel/justice apparatus this simple act would have been done long
ago and then made public. Yet, here we are more than three years later trying to unravel, figure out or resolve the trail of clues
via metadata the pranksters left behind.
It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received
by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us.
"... The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again." ..."
"... Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new article for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this: ..."
"... As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future, and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain. ..."
"... basically, a Biden foreign policy would be "Obama but worse" https://t.co/wIZwch5Bmk ..."
"... Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S. engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization. ..."
"... Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse. ..."
"... Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the world we live in. ..."
"... Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. ..."
"... Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start and legitimize the Iraq war? ..."
"... Bottom line is Biden is fraud and everything he and his handlers say or write must be viewed as such. ..."
oe Biden's candidacy is defined by the idea that he will "restore" things to the way they were four years ago and that he will
preside over a "return to normalcy" after the Trump years. The
phrase "return
to normalcy" has been
linked to the
Biden campaign
for the better part of the last year. TAC 's Curt Mills
commented on this
after Biden's recent primary wins:
Biden then, not Trump, would be the candidate of the centennial. Like Warren Harding, he promises a return to normalcy.
The Harding comparison is quite useful because it shows how Biden's "return to normalcy" will be quite different from the one
Harding proposed a century ago. Harding contrasted
normalcy with "nostrums." This was a shot at the ideological fantasies of the Wilson era and the upheaval that had come with U.S.
entry into WWI. This is the
full quote :
America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation,
but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence
in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.
The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration
would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent
discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again."
Where Harding's "normalcy" represented the repudiation of Wilsonian fantasies, Biden's would be an attempt to revive them at least
in part. Harding contrasted "normalcy" with Wilson's "nostrums," but Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric
about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new
article
for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this:
As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future,
and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that
took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain.
The Cold War ended thirty years ago, and it is telling that Biden does not point to any victories for the U.S. in the decades
that have followed. Proponents of U.S. global "leadership" have to keep reaching farther and farther back in time to recall a time
when U.S. "leadership" was successful, and they have remarkably little to say about the thirty years when they have been running
things. That is what they want to "restore," but it's not clear why Americans should want to go back to a status quo ante that produced
such staggering and costly failures as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Like the early 19th century Bourbon restoration, it would be
a return to power for those who had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
John Carl Baker comments on an op-ed co-authored last year by Robert Kagan and Anthony Blinken. Blinken is now Biden's main foreign
policy adviser, and that leads Baker to draw this conclusion:
Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but
more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S.
engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization.
Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare
is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails
U.S. foreign policy.
I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the
wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including
unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold
War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse.
I'm one of those poor saps who was taken in by Trump in 2016, and I want a Democrat I can vote for. I can't see voting for
someone with Biden's appalling foreign policy record. If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose
to Trump.
"If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose to Trump."
I don't know about that. Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really
outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the
world we live in.
Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to
hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. The only recantation I would find somewhat persuasive (I don't think anything would "convince"
me) is if he were to state that he will appoint somebody like Sanders or Rand Paul as secretary of State and someone like Tulsi
Gabbard as secretary of Defense, and staff his national security council by recruiting from the Quincy Institute. (To actually
capture my vote would require additional personnel commitments, such as Elizabeth Warren for secretary of the Treasury--but that's
off topic for this thread.)
Right now, I would vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination and doesn't do something between now and November to alienate
me. If Biden is the nominee, barring something really drastic, I'll do my usual and find a third party candidate to vote for.
Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start
and legitimize the Iraq war? Just accusing Biden of voting for the Iraq war is nothing. About 70 other senators have voted for
it. Biden was the legislative Architect that paved the way for the Iraq War, and in my books (keeping the UN Charter as the legal
standard), he is a War Criminal.
I realize that almost everything Biden has to say about foreign policy is abysmal, and both Sanders and Warren were much better,
but neither were electable (and both were abysmal on domestic policy and trade policy). Biden may be banal, but he is not vicious,
as Trump so clearly is.
Furthermore, I think the otherwise estimable Mr. Larison fails to realize that the general public does
set some vague parameters for what is and what is not acceptable foreign policy, though often without knowing it. I think it quite
likely that Donald Trump will "abandon" Afghanistan, just as Max Boot et al. fear, and no one who can't name the Acela stops between
New York and DC will care. Trump, when he isn't assassinating people, is much less aggressive than the Obama/Clinton administration.
Although he talks about regime change, he doesn't follow through. He can be talked out of withdrawing troops, but so far hasn't
tried sending them in. Early in his administration he was widely praised for firing Tomahawk missiles into Syria. Why hasn't he
done it again? There is nothing Trump likes so much as praise. Why abandon what seemed like a sure-fire applause line?
The "electability" concept is something mostly constructed by the media. Only a very small percentage of voters come in direct
contact and hear and observe the candidates. The very brief TV debates, much choreographed and controlled are no good. As such,
media starts and keeps repeating this notion of electability.
As a person, presence, message, I think the most charismatic individual to show up for this presidential cycle is Tulsi Gabbard.
Her showing is off the charts compared with everyone else. Beside her anti regime change message (she is not necessarily anti-war),
her charisma is such a threat that she had to be excluded from the consciousness and awareness of people. And what was implanted
in people's mind is that she is an Assad apologist and that she met with the blood thirsty Assad.
How about restoration of the "normalcy" of bipartisan consensus on "comprehensive immigration reform" AKA a general amnesty which
will likely benefit some 25 to 35 million illegal aliens plus their descendants, in practice?
It doesn't seem to make much sense harping about restoring sanity to American foreign policy when America might not even exist
in 20 years.
"... I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference. ..."
"... Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn. ..."
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing
happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The
American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal.
Until the Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes,
memes, and retweets.
The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter
suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter
fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to
Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated
city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for
Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election
interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that
reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional
mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn.
Contrary to the depiction in Western media, the Syria war is not a civil war. This is because the initiators, financiers and
a large part of the anti-government fighters
come from abroad .
Nor is the Syria war a religious war, for Syria was and still is one of the most
secular countries in the region, and the Syrian army – like its direct opponents – is itself mainly composed of Sunnis.
But the Syria war is also not a pipeline war, as some critics suspected,
because the allegedly
competing gas pipeline projects
never
existed to begin with, as even the Syrian president
confirmed .
Instead, the Syria war is a war of conquest and regime change
, which developed into a geopolitical proxy war between NATO states on one side – especially the US, Great Britain and France – and
Russia, Iran, and China on the other side.
In fact, already since the 1940s the US has repeatedly
attempted to install a pro-Western government
in Syria, such as in 1949, 1956, 1957, after 1980 and after 2003, but without success so far. This makes Syria – since the fall of
Libya – the last Mediterranean country independent
of NATO.
Thus, in the course of the „Arab Spring" of 2011, NATO and its allies, especially Israel and the Gulf States,
decided to try again. To this end, politically and economically motivated protests in Syria were used and were quickly
escalated into an armed conflict.
NATO's original strategy of 2011 was based on the Afghanistan
war of the 1980s and aimed at conquering Syria mainly through positively portrayed Islamist militias (so-called „rebels").
This did not succeed, however, because the militias lacked an air force and anti-aircraft missiles.
Hence from 2013 onwards,
various poison gas
attacks were
staged in order to be able to deploy the NATO air force as part of a „humanitarian intervention" similar to the earlier wars
against Libya and Yugoslavia. But this did not succeed either, mainly because Russia and China blocked a UN mandate.
As of 2014, therefore, additional but negatively portrayed Islamist militias („terrorists") were covertly
established in Syria
and Iraq via NATO partners Turkey and Jordan, secretly
supplied
with weapons and vehicles
and indirectly
financed
by oil exports via the Turkish Ceyhan terminal.
ISIS: Supply and export routes through NATO partners Turkey and Jordan (ISW / Atlantic, 2015)
Media-effective
atrocity propaganda and mysterious „terrorist attacks" in Europe and the US then offered the opportunity to intervene in Syria
using the NATO air force even without a UN mandate – ostensibly to fight the „terrorists", but
in reality still to conquer Syria and topple
its government.
This plan failed again, however, as Russia also used the presence of the „terrorists" in autumn 2015 as a justification
for direct military
intervention and was now able to attack both the „terrorists" and parts of NATO's „rebels" while simultaneously securing
the Syrian airspace to a large extent.
By the end of 2016, the Syrian army thus succeeded in
recapturing the city of Aleppo.
From 2016 onwards, NATO therefore switched back to positively portrayed but now Kurdish-ledmilitias (the SDF) in order to still have unassailable
ground forces available and to conquer the Syrian territory held by the previously established „terrorists" before Syria and Russia
could do so themselves.
This led to a kind of
„race"
to conquer cities such as Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor in 2017 and to a temporary division of Syria along the Euphrates river into a (largely)
Syrian-controlled West and a Kurdish (or rather American) controlled East (see map below).
This move, however, brought NATO into
conflict
with its key member Turkey, because Turkey did not accept a Kurdish-controlled territory on its southern border. As a result, the
NATO alliance became increasingly divided from 2018 onwards.
Turkey now fought the Kurds in
northern Syria and at the same time supported the remaining Islamists in the north-western province of Idlib against the Syrian army,
while the Americans eventually
withdrew
to the eastern Syrian oil fields in order to retain a political bargaining chip.
While Turkey supported Islamists in northern Syria, Israel more or less covertly
supplied Islamists in southern Syria and at the same time fought Iranian and Lebanese (Hezbollah) units with air strikes, though
without lasting success: the militias in southern Syria had to surrender in 2018.
Ultimately, some NATO members
tried to use a confrontation between the Turkish and Syrian armies in the province of Idlib as a last option to escalate the
war. In addition to the situation in Idlib, the issues of the occupied territories in the north and east of Syria remain to be resolved,
too.
Russia, for its part, has tried to draw Turkey out of the NATO alliance and onto its own side as far as possible. Modern Turkey,
however, is pursuing a rather far-reaching geopolitical
strategy of its own, which is also increasingly clashing with Russian interests in the Middle East and Central Asia.
As part of this geopolitical strategy, Turkey in 2015 and 2020 even used the so-called
"weapon of mass migration" , which may serve to destabilize
both Syria (so-called strategic depopulation
) and Europe, as well as to extort financial, political or military support from the European Union.
Syria: The situation in February 2020
What role did the Western media play in this war?
The task of NATO-compliant media was to portray
the war against Syria as a „civil war", the Islamist „rebels" positively, the Islamist „terrorists" and the Syrian government negatively,
the alleged „poison gas attacks" credibly and the NATO intervention consequently as legitimate.
Since 2019, NATO-compliant media moreover had to conceal or discredit various leaks and whistleblowers that began to prove the
covert Western arms deliveries
to the Islamist „rebels" and „terrorists" as well as the staged
„poison gas attacks"
.
But if even the „terrorists" in Syria were demonstrably established and equipped by NATO states, what role then did the mysterious
„caliph of terror" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi play? He possibly played a similar role as his direct
predecessor , Omar al-Baghdadi – who was a
phantom .
Thanks to new communication technologies and on-site sources, the Syria war was also the first war about which
independent media could report almost in real-time and thus for
the first time significantly influenced the public perception of events – a potentially historic change.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
All images in this article are from SPR
Order Mark Taliano's Book "Voices from Syria"
directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis
that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a
hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style
leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have
been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC
manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.
There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of
information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was
carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as
perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the
Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal
intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone
else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made
its way from there to WikiLeaks.
Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the
media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that
the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of
thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election
by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of
material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used,
meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system.
Someone like Seth Rich.
... ... ...
Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses
only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference,
which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the
Clinton and Podesta emails.
Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the
information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the
Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable
of.
It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National
Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop
Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to
observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.
I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great
deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about
it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already
been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify
himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the
Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.
I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking
Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the
emails while paving the way for an election victory.
If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.
I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one
option.
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story
– blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is
no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
@plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of
the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways
that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have
shown the American political process is a complete joke.
To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016
interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents
refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal
agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants
in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang,
otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then
pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't
seen anything to change my mind:
Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were
randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be
surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.
Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that
cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street
killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of
American history?
Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so
that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her
camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good
motive for murder.
Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:
Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that
until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's
street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at
dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and
endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be
willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks
Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and
Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not
long after the leak.
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?
"If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for
his treachery ."
Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against
Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from
their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he
decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.
In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's
dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I
understand it.
Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.
Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.
(And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire,
please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are
capable of.)
Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why
would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the
murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer
and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.
Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks,
could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise
the other(s).
Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after
that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their
identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their
associates or families.
Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the
CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have
held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.
I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former
lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She
asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview,
link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth
Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to
lose another son.
"According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange
were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."
Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing
to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal
for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was
authorized by Trump to make any offer.
The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint
at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.
Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's
contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.
I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in
the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party
squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush
era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the
neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.
Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC
are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play
within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties
of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of
Israel, for example.
Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a
sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who
described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of
some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .
It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm
Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city
and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.
We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly
fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy
like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.
My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous
in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were
prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.
What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks
like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the
case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make
sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.
However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for
street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor
alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection
between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police
don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some
scrutiny.
But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on
the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.
Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.
Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed
Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging
the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign
advertising.
Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in
a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such
cases that year.
I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and
merely happened together by chance.
"... The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump. ..."
"... The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA. ..."
"... What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot. ..."
"... People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path. ..."
"... The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset. ..."
"... Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone. ..."
First , the whistleblower was ruled out as a possible witness -- this was
essentially done behind the scenes, and in reality can be called a Deep State operation, though
one exposed to some extent by Rand Paul. This has nothing to do with protecting the
whistleblower or upholding the whistleblower statute, but instead with the fact that the
whistleblower was a CIA plant in the White House.
That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy
theory. Furthermore, for some time before the impeachment proceedings began, the whistleblower
had been coordinating his efforts to undermine Trump with the head of the House Intelligence
Committee, who happens to be Adam Schiff. It is possible that the connections with Schiff go
even further or deeper. Obviously the Democrats do not want these things exposed.
... ... ...
In this regard, there was a very special moment on January 29, when Chief Justice John
Roberts refused to allow the reading of a question from Sen. Rand Paul that identified the
alleged whistleblower. Paul then held a press conference in which he read his question.
The question was directed at Adam Schiff, who claims not to have communicated with the
whistleblower, despite much evidence to the contrary. (Further details can be read at
here
.) A propos of what I was just saying, Paul is described in the Politico article as
"a longtime antagonist of Republican leaders." Excellent, good on you, Rand Paul.
Whether this was a case of unintended consequences or not, one could say that this episode
fed into the case against calling witnesses -- certainly the Democrats should not have been
allowed to call witnesses if the Republicans could not call the whistleblower. But clearly this
point is completely lost on those working in terms of the moving line of bullshit.
One would think that Democrats would be happy with a Republican Senator who antagonizes
leaders of his own party, but of course Rand Paul's effort only led to further "outrage" on the
part of Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.
The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower,
and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not
contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump.
However, you see, there is a complementary purpose at work here, too. The whole point of
having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee,
headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious
powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the
CIA.
The only way these machinations can be combatted is to pull the curtain back further -- but
the Republicans do not want this any more than the Democrats do, with a few possible exceptions
such as Rand Paul. (As the Politico article states, Paul was chastised publicly by McConnell
for submitting his question in the first place, and for criticizing Roberts in the press
conference.)
What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a
savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand
Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a
savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case,
in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is
probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot.
... ... ...
Now we are at a moment when "the Left" is recognizing the role that the CIA and the rest of
the "intelligence community" is played in the impeachment nonsense. This "Left" was already on
board for the "impeachment process" itself, perhaps at moments with caveats about "not leaving
everything up to the Democrats," "not just relying on the Democrats," but still accepting their
assigned role as cheerleaders and self-important internet commentators. (And, sure, maybe
that's all I am, too -- but the inability to distinguish form from content is one of the main
problems of the existing Left.)
Now, though, people on the Left are trying to get comfortable with, and trying to explain to
themselves how they can get comfortable with, the obvious role of the "intelligence community"
(with, in my view, the CIA in the leading role, but of course I'm not privy to the inner
workings of this scene) in the impeachment process and other efforts to take down Trump's
presidency.
People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the
impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my
mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially;
that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic
levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path.
They might think about the "help" that the CIA gave to the military in Bolivia to remove Evo
Morales from office. They might think about the picture of Donald Trump that they find
necessary to paint to justify what they are willing to swallow to remove him from office. They
might think about the fact that ordinary Democrats are fine with this role for the CIA, and
that Adam Schiff and others routinely offer the criticism/condemnation of Donald Trump that he
doesn't accept the findings of the CIA or the rest of the intelligence agencies at face
value.
The moment for the Left, what calls itself and thinks of itself as that, to break with this
lunacy has passed some time ago, but let us take this moment, of "accepting the help of the
CIA, because Trump," as truly marking a point of no return.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot
for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his
narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset.
paul ,
Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction.
Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the
system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be
diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.
The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat
in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political
candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be
outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.
Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were,
lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to
the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from
behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid
criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the
world to see. This cannot be undone.
For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump
has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by
now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and
rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this.
They realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their
stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and
may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests.
And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.
George Mc ,
Haven't you just agreed with him here?
He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to
identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists.
People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a
confused mess, that's my whole point;)
If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which they are) then the left are indeed
dead – at least as far as political representation goes.
Koba ,
He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he staged several coups in Latin America and
wanted to take out the dprk and thier nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!
sharon marlowe ,
First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then
Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then
Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed
Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was
launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that
he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields.
trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request
of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the
request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He
expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an
investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has
bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm
aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you
can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when
he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.
Dungroanin ,
Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a
wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and ...
sharon marlowe ,
There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.
Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't
get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.
People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even
mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump
has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in
such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st
century's most horrible leaders on earth.
Dungroanin ,
...If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be
having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.
Savorywill ,
Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the
attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that
the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties.
When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when
advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than
the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and
that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs
that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in
Iraq in the first place.
I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he
has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at
least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something
Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US
economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation
as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.
The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed
by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.
Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad
🤣
"... Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes ..."
"There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold."
– William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to
see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us
by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man.
It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives
of just this one person. The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an
essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was
meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that
is exactly what we should not do.
In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes
the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with
what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of 'official
government statements'.
Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what
caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.
An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows
It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina.
That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep.
Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The
world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to
war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.
In a previous paper I wrote titled
"On Churchill's Sinews
of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of
Truman's de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was
exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933,
against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy
corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.
One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau
that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared
over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the
internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National
Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as
the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.
" In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC)
Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations
and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions , provided they had been directed to do so
by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces
were directed to "provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function . "
What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the
foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the
President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies.
An Inheritance of Secret Wars
" There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. "
– Sun Tzu
On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility
of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.
JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters
and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA
secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's
March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000
man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.
This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the
military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been
subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office,
and the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.
Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist
history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a
decisive victory for Castro's Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for
the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because,
had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were
against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility
as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst
a Cold War.
What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers
from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against
an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without
the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for Cuba.
Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge
Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In
addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out
of the country on the day of the landings.
Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:
" Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited
the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the
official invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect. "
As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the
responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell
Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was
due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.
Kennedy had them.
Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because
of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum
#55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty
states,
" When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert
operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin. "
If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy
Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.
In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more
missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret
deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms
of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.
NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision " to withdraw 1,000
military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963 " and further stated that " It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of
U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965. " The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S.
TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.
This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.
Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but,
more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is . The CIA showed what lengths
it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans
at the time, Jim Garrison's
book . And the excellently
researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")
Through the Looking Glass
On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of
Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War
and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.
The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy's death, lasting a total
of 20 years for Americans.
Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force
on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold
War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia
and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed
by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.
It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran
needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency
against the CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina. This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect
CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.
Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign
and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie
Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly
to 'pay the price' .
Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would
not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President
Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176
civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely
something else going on here.
I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad
to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a
compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President
alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.
One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as "terrorist" occurring in April
2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC
at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military
can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's
assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton has also made it
no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown
conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that
though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was
the very opposite, stating " I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long
pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment. "
Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country.
And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position
to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes .
". . . the CIA holds no allegiance to any country." But they sure kiss the *** of the financial sociopaths who write their
paychecks and finance the black ops.
Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team is a must read... he was on the inside and watched the formation of the permanent team
established in the late 50s that assumed the power of the president.
Look at who the OSS recruited - Ivy League Skull and Bones types from rich families that made their fortunes in often questionable
ventures.
If you're the patriarch of some super wealthy family wouldn't you be thrilled to have younger family members working for the
nation's intelligence agencies? Sort of the ultimate in 'inside information'. Plus these families had experience in things like
drug smuggling, human trafficking and anything else you can imagine..... While the Brits started the opium trade with China, Americans
jumped right in bringing opium from Turkey.
Didn't take long before the now CIA became owned by the families whose members staffed it.
One major aspect pertaining American involvment in Veitnam was something like 90% of the rubber produced Globally came from
the region.
It is more diverse now, being 3rd, with the association revealing that in 2017, Vietnam earned US$2.3 billion from export of
1.4 million tonnes of natural rubber, up 36% in value and 11.4% in volume year on year.
Rockfellers formed the OSS then the CIA which is the brute force for the CFR which they also run and own. The bankers run y
our country and bought and blackmailed all your politicians... Only buttplug and pedo's get to be in charge now folks.... and
some 9th circle witches of course...
The USA is an imperial country. And wars is how empire is sustained and expanded. Bacevich does not even mention this
fact.
Notable quotes:
"... While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution to the impeachment crisis. ..."
"... This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive and deeply rooted American militarism has become. ..."
"... we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. ..."
"... The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all, the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade now. ..."
"... Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans. Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly, how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah. He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered Afghans. ..."
"... By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money ..."
"... Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort. ..."
The Afghanistan Papers could have been the start of redemption, but it's all been subsumed
by impeachment and an uninterested public.
....
While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one
that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution
to the impeachment crisis.
This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war
should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive
and deeply rooted American militarism has become.
Take seriously the speechifying heard on the floor of the House of Representatives in recent
days and you'll be reassured that the United States remains a nation of laws, with Democrats
and Republicans alike affirming their determination to defend our democracy and preserve the
Constitution, even while disagreeing on what that might require at present.
Take seriously the contents of the Afghanistan Papers and you'll reach a different
conclusion: we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American
soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. U.S. military expenditures and the Pentagon's
array of foreign bases far exceed those of any other nation on the planet. In our willingness
to use force, we (along with Israel) lead the pack. Putative adversaries such as China and
Russia are models of self-restraint by comparison. And when it comes to cumulative body count,
the United States is in a league of its own.
Yet since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, U.S. forces have rarely
accomplished the purposes for which they are committed, the Pentagon concealing failure by
downsizing its purposes. Afghanistan offers a good example. What began as Operation Enduring
Freedom has become in all but name Operation Decent Interval, the aim being to disengage in a
manner that will appear responsible, if only for a few years until the bottom falls out.
So the real significance of the Post 's Afghanistan Papers is this: t hey invite
Americans to contemplate a particularly vivid example what our misplaced infatuation with
military power produces. Sadly, it appears evident that we will refuse the invitation. Don't
blame Trump for this particular example of Washington's egregious irresponsibility.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ,will
be published next month.
The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all,
the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade
now.
Anyway, nobody likes a bipartisan fiasco that cannot be neatly blamed on Team R (or Team
D).
Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans.
Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly,
how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah.
He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered
Afghans.
By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for
outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in
numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money. What a joke
this nations foreign policy is and the ignorant, don't care American people have become. Like
never before. There were years when people actually talked about subjects. Not now, if you
mention the weather they cower and look pained. The old days really were better.
One example aside from the above: compare President Kennedy to Trump. What a riot...
Well, these documents are highly unsurprising. Everybody has known the facts for a long time.
Everybody also knows that the US "government" will not change its ways. Its sole purpose and
mission is to obliterate everything except Israel, and these documents are evidence of
massive SUCCESS in its mission, not evidence of failure.
Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front
line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with
obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort.
This is also to say that misleading documents and briefings from the military about
progress in Afghanistan, while contemptible, did not cause the strategic failure.
Contemporary reports from the press and other agencies indicated the effort was not working
out plainly to anyone who wanted to pay attention. Our political leaders chose to ignore the
truth for political gain.
A more realistic temperament chastened by experience would have been more inclined to
criticize and make corrections, and summon the courage to cut our losses rather than crow
ignominiously about "cutting and running." Few such temperaments, it seems at least, make it
to the top thee days.
'We came, we saw, he died' -- Hillary Clinton smirked when she said it. She had no idea how many
people that would apply to.
A fighter loyal to the Libyan internationally-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) fires a heavy machine gun.
(MAHMUD TURKIA/AFP via Getty Images)
Libya's ongoing destruction belongs to Hillary Clinton more than anyone else. It was she who pushed President Barack Obama
to launch his splendid little war, backing the overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi in the name of protecting Libya's civilians.
When later asked about Gaddafi's death, she cackled and exclaimed: "We came, we saw, he died."
Alas, his was not the last
death in that conflict, which has flared anew, turning Libya into a real-life
Game of Thrones
. An artificial
country already suffering from deep regional divisions, Libya has been further torn apart by political and religious
differences. One commander fighting on behalf of the Government of National Accord (GNA), Salem Bin Ismail, told the BBC:
"We have had chaos since 2011."
Arrayed against the weak unity government is the former Gaddafi general, U.S. citizen, and one-time CIA adjunct Khalifa
Haftar. For years, the two sides have appeared to be in relative military balance, but a who's who of meddlesome outsiders
has turned the conflict into an international affair. The latest playbook features Egypt, France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates, and Russia supporting Haftar, while Italy, Qatar, and Turkey are with the unity government.
In April, Haftar launched an offensive to seize Tripoli. It faltered until Russian mercenaries made an appearance in
September, bringing Haftar to the gates of Tripoli. He apparently is also employing Sudanese mercenaries, though not with
their nation's backing. Now Turkey plans to introduce troops to bolster the official government.
Washington's position is at best confused. It officially recognizes the GNA. When Haftar started his offensive,
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement urging "the immediate halt to these military operations." However,
President Donald Trump then initiated a friendly phone call to Haftar "to discuss ongoing counterterrorism efforts and the
need to achieve peace and stability in Libya," according to the White House. More incongruously, "The president recognized
Field Marshal Haftar's significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya's oil resources, and the two discussed a
shared vision for Libya's transition to a stable, democratic political system." The State Department recently urged both
sides to step back. However, Haftar continues to advance, and just days ago captured the coastal city of Sirte.
In recent years, Libya had been of little concern to the U.S. It was an oil producer, but Gaddafi had as much incentive
to sell the oil as did King Idris I, whom Gaddafi and other members of the "Free Officers Movement" ousted. Gaddafi
carefully balanced interests in Libya's complex tribal society and kept the military weak over fears of another coup. He
was a geopolitical troublemaker, supporting a variety of insurgent and terrorist groups. But he steadily lost influence,
alienating virtually every African and Middle Eastern government.
Of greatest concern to Washington, Libyan agents organized terrorist attacks against the U.S. -- bombing an American
airliner and a Berlin disco frequented by American soldiers -- leading to economic sanctions and military retaliation.
However, those days were long over by 2011. Eight years before, in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Gaddafi
repudiated terrorism and ended his missile and nuclear programs in a deal with the U.S. and Europe. He was feted in
European capitals. His government served as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council from 2008 to 2009. American
officials congratulated him for his assistance against terrorism and discussed possible assistance in return. All seemed
forgiven.
Then in 2011, the Arab Spring engulfed Libya, as people rose against Gaddafi's rule. He responded with force to
reestablish control. However, Western advocates of regime change warned that genocide was possible and pushed for
intervention under United Nations auspices. In explaining his decision to intervene, Obama stated: "We knew that if we
waited one more day, Benghazi could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the
conscience of the world." Russia and China went along with a resolution authorizing "all necessary measures to prevent the
killing of civilians."
In fact, the fears were fraudulent. Gaddafi was no angel, but he hadn't targeted civilians, and his florid rhetoric,
cited by critics, only attacked those who had taken up arms. He even promised amnesty to those who abandoned their weapons.
With no civilians to protect, NATO, led by the U.S., bombed Libyan government forces and installations and backed the
insurgents' offensive. It was not a humanitarian intervention, but a lengthy, costly, low-tech, regime-change war, mostly
at Libyan expense. Obama claimed: "We had a unique ability to stop the violence." Instead his administration ensured that
the initial civil war would drag on for months -- and the larger struggle ultimately for years.
On October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was discovered hiding in a culvert in Sirte. He was beaten, sodomized with a bayonet, shot,
and killed. That essentially ended the first phase of the extended Libyan civil war. Gaddafi had done much to earn his
fate, but his death led to an entirely new set of problems.
A low level insurgency continued, led by former Gaddafi followers. Proposals either to disband militia forces or
integrate them into the National Transitional Council (NTC) military went unfulfilled, and this developed into the
conflict's second phase. Elections delivered fragmented results, as ideological, religious, and other divisions ran deep.
Militias were accused of misusing government funds, employing violence, and kidnapping and assassinating their opponents.
Islamist groups increasingly attempted to impose religious rule. Violence and insecurity worsened.
In February 2014, Haftar challenged the General National Congress (GNC). Hostilities broadly evolved between the
GNC/GNA, backed by several militias, which controlled Tripoli and much of the country's west, and the Tobruk-based House of
Representatives, which was supported by Haftar and his Libyan National Army. Multiple domestic factions, forces, and
militias also were involved. Among them was the Islamic State, which murdered Egyptian Coptic (Christian) laborers.
The African Union and the United Nations promoted various peace initiatives. However, other governments fueled
hostilities. Most notable now is the potential entry of Turkish troops.
In mid-December, Turkey's parliament approved an agreement to provide equipment, military training, technical aid, and
intelligence. (The Erdogan government also controversially set maritime boundaries with Libya that conflict with other
claims, most notably from Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, and Israel.) Ankara introduced some members of the dwindling Syrian
insurgents once aligned against the Assad regime to Libya and raised the possibility of adding its "quick reaction force"
to the fight.
At the end of last month, the Erdogan government introduced, and parliament approved, legislation to authorize the
deployment of combat forces. President Erdogan criticized nations that backed a "putschist general" and "warlord" and
promised to support the GNA "much more effectively." While noting that Turkey doesn't "go where we are not invited"
(except, apparently, Syria), Erdogan added that "since now there is an invitation [from the GNA], we will accept it."
But Haftar refused to back down. Last week, he called on "men and women, soldiers and civilians, to defend our land and
our honor." He continued: "We accept the challenge and declare jihad and a call to arms."
Turkish legislator Ismet Yilmaz supported the intervention and warned that the conflict might "spread instability to
Turkey." More likely the intervention is a grab for energy, since Ankara has devoted significant resources of late to
exploring the Eastern Mediterranean for oil and gas. Libya has oil deposits, of course, which could be exploited under a
friendly government. Perhaps most important, Ankara wants to ensure that its interests are respected in the Eastern
Mediterranean.
However, direct intervention is an extraordinarily dangerous step. It puts Turkey in the line of fire, as in Syria.
Ankara's forces could clash with those of Russia, which maintains the merest veneer of deniability over its role in Libya.
And other powers -- Egypt, perhaps, or the UAE -- might ramp up their involvement in an effort to thwart Erdogan's plans.
In response, the U.S. attempted to warn Turkey against intervening. "External military intervention threatens prospects
for resolving the conflict," said State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus with no hint of irony. Congress might go
further: some of its members have already proposed sanctioning Russia for the introduction of mercenaries, and Ankara has
few friends left on Capitol Hill. Nevertheless it is rather late for Washington to cry foul. Its claim to essentially a
monopoly on Mideast meddling can only be seen as risible by other powers.
The Arab League has also criticized "foreign interference." In a resolution passed in late December, the group expressed
"serious concern over the military escalation further aggravating the situation in Libya and which threatens the security
and stability of neighboring countries and the entire region." However, Arab League is no less hypocritical. Egypt, the
UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, all deeply involved in the conflict, are members of the league. And no one would be
surprised if some or all of them decided to expand their participation in the fighting. Egyptian president Abdel Fatah
al-Sisi insisted: "We will not allow anyone to control Libya. It is a matter of Egyptian national security."
Although the fighting is less intense than in, say, Syria, combat has gone high-tech. According to the
Washington
Post
: "Eight months into Libya's worst spasm of violence in eight years, the conflict is being fought increasingly by
weaponized drones." ISIS is one of the few beneficiaries of these years of fighting. GNA-allied militias that once
cooperated with the U.S. and other states in counterterrorism are now focused on Haftar, allowing militants to revive, set
up desert camps, and organize attacks. Washington still employs drones, but they rely on accurate intelligence, best
gathered on the ground, and even then well-directed hits are no substitute for local ground operations.
The losers are the Libyan people. The fighting has resulted in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of refugees.
Divisions, even among tribes, are growing. The future looks ever dimmer. Fathi Bashagha, the GNA interior minister,
lamented: "Every day we are burying young people who should be helping us build Libya." Absent a major change, many more
will be buried in the future.
Yet the air of unreality surrounding the conflict remains. In late December, President Trump met with al-Sisi and,
according to the White House, the two "rejected foreign exploitation and agreed that parties must take urgent steps to
resolve the conflict before Libyans lose control to foreign actors." However, the latter already happened -- nine years ago
when America first intervened.
The Obama administration did not plan to ruin Libya for a generation. But its decision to take on another people's fight
has resulted in catastrophe. Hillary Clinton's malignant gift keeps on giving. Such is the cost of America's promiscuous
war-making.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan
and the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
"... Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless. ..."
"... In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson reported in The Epoch Times. ..."
"... That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling ( footnote 69 ). ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations. ..."
"... Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years. ..."
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him
from office – namely, 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of congress' –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been
guilty of for nearly half a decade : abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they
desperately need a 'get out of jail free' card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald
Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only
scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
"Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet,"
wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico. Yet impeachment, he noted, is "already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few
members of Congress."
The timing of Samuelsohn's article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just
one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson
reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according
to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (
footnote
69 ).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate
all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they
were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI's non-compliance
with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly
calling for Roger's removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first
notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times,
the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – "caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration."
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the
FBI investigation over 'Russian collusion.' Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration
was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting
at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey
Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the
lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked
claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions,
expelled
35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump's campaign platform was to mend relations with
Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent
relations between the world's premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn't 'Russian collusion' that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who
was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to
communicate
sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly
2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the
death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting
32,000 deemed to be of a "personal nature". Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly
pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies
were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example,
said it's time for Clinton "to step up" and explain herself, adding that "silence is going to hurt her."
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times
published a front-page story with the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton's Use of Email." Later, Jennifer Rubin of
the Washington Post candidly
summed up Clinton's rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: "Democrats still show no sign they are willing
to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty
of baggage -- the details of which are not yet known."
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks
launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server
while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department's inspector
general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton's email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek
legal approval for her use of a private server.
"At a minimum," the report determined, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented
in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was
reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tęte-ŕ-tęte with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,
whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided
to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed "his grandchildren and his travels and things like that." Republicans, however,
certainly weren't buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch &
@billclinton at their word that their convo
in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned
down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich's murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery,
bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates
for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly
by an online persona with the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of "Russian hacking"
first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed "high
confidence" that the Russians had organized an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's "electability," as if she wasn't capable
of that without Kremlin support.
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer," the memo states (The memo's conclusions were based on
analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). "Key among the findings
of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far
exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack."
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts
within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read
here . Thus, it would
seem there is no 'smoking gun,' as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder
of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved "botched robbery," according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold
the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting
a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who
would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
"Because you'd be in jail"
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump
accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails,
while adding that he would get a "special prosecutor and we're going to look into it " To this, Clinton said "it's just awfully good
that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump deadpanned, without
missing a beat, "because you'd be in jail."
Now if that remark didn't get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump's comments at a Virginia rally
days later, when he promised to "drain the swamp," made folks sit up and take notice.
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton's
presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how
Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious
media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was 'Russia.'
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential
race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating
Anthony Weiner's abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages
from Hillary Clinton.
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of her electronic
devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although
Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions,
arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely
out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,
released the 400-page IG report
that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI's applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance
on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have
the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous,
in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
"... The Russiagate investigation, which had formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the prior President. ..."
"... In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813, governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power" or an agent a foreign power. ..."
"... The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this Court's effective operation. ..."
"... On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD ..."
"... which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. ..."
"... Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he ..."
"... seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation? ..."
"... "JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do." ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Do you believe that? ..."
"... BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers below him is simply not true. ..."
"... Allegedly, George Papadopoulos said that "Halper insinuated to him that Russia was helping the Trump campaign" , and Papadopoulos was shocked at Halper's saying this. Probably because so much money at the Pentagon is untraceable, some of the crucial documentation on this investigation might never be found. For example, the Defense Department's Inspector General's 2 July 2019 report to the US Senate said "ONA personnel could not provide us any evidence that Professor Halper visited any of these locations, established an advisory group, or met with any of the specific people listed in the statement of work." ..."
"... very profitable business ..."
"... Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey. In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama). ..."
"... Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. ..."
"... and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama ..."
"... Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.) ..."
"... There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since. ..."
"... Reform is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid a free-fall into oblivion. ..."
"... The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the Deep State . ..."
Former US President
Barack Obama is now in severe legal jeopardy, because the Russiagate investigation has turned
180 degrees; and he, instead of the current President, Donald Trump, is in its cross-hairs.
The biggest crime that a US President can commit is to try to defeat American democracy (the
Constitutional functioning of the US Government) itself, either by working with foreign powers
to take it over, or else by working internally within America to sabotage democracy for his or
her own personal reasons. Either way, it's treason (crime that is intended to, and does,
endanger the continued functioning of the Constitution itself*), and Mr. Obama is now being
actively investigated, as possibly having done this.
The Russiagate investigation, which had
formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the
prior President. Although he, of course, cannot be removed from office (since he is no longer
in office), he is liable under criminal laws, the same as any other American would be, if he
committed any crime while he was in office.
A
December 17th order by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court severely
condemned the performance by the FBI under Obama, for having obtained, on 19 October 2016 (even prior to the US Presidential
election), from that Court, under false pretenses, an authorization for the FBI to commence
investigating Donald Trump's Presidential campaign, as being possibly in collusion with
Russia's Government. The Court's ruling said:
In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is
useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the
government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813,
governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an
order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to
grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it
provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power"
or an agent a foreign power.
The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that
is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on
electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its
heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this
Court's effective operation.
On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions
of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information
to NSD [National Security Division of the Department of Justice] which was unsupported
or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in
which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to
their case for believing that Mr. [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign
power.
On December 18th, Martha McCallum, of Fox News,
interviewed US Attorney General Bill Barr , and asked him (at 7:00 in the video
) how high up in the FBI the blame for this (possible treason) goes:
MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he [Obama's FBI Director James Comey]
seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation?
"JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you
can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career
professionals to do."
MACCALLUM: Do you believe that?
BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely
that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged
by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers
below him is simply not true.
The current (Trump) A.G. there called the former (Obama) FBI Director a liar on that.
If Comey gets heat for this possibly lie-based FBI investigation of the US Presidential
nominee from the opposite Party of the sitting US President (Comey's own boss, Obama), then
protecting himself could become Comey's top motivation; and, in that condition, protecting his
former boss might become only a secondary concern for him.
Though Halper actually did no such studies for the Pentagon,
he instead functioned as a paid FBI informant (and it's not yet clear whether that money came
from the Pentagon, which spends
trillions of dollars that are off-the-books and untraceable ), and at some point Trump's
campaign became a target of Halper's investigation. This investigation was nominally to examine
"The Russia-China Relationship: The impact on US Security interests."
It seems that the Pentagon-contracted work was a cover-story, like
pizza parlors have been for some Mafia operations. But, anyway, this is how America's
'democracy' actually functions .
And, of course, America's
Deep State works not only through governmental agencies but also through
underworld organizations . That's just reality, not at all speculative. It's been this way
for decades, at least since the time of Truman's Presidency (as is documented at that
link).
Furthermore, inasmuch as this operation certainly involved Obama's CIA Director John Brennan
and others, and not only top officials at the FBI, there is no chance that Comey would have
been the only high official who was involved in it. And if Comey was
involved, then he would have been acting in his own interest, and not only in his boss's -- and
here's why: Comey would be expected to have been highly motivated to oppose Mr. Trump,
because Trump publicly questioned whether NATO (the main international selling-arm for
America's 'defense'-contractors) should continue to exist, and also because Comey's entire
career had been in the service of America's Military-Industrial Complex, which is the reason
why Comey's main
lifetime income has been the tens of millions of dollars he has received via the revolving door
between his serving the federal Government and his serving firms such as Lockheed Martin .
For these people, restoring, and intensifying, and keeping up, the Cold War , is a very profitable business . It's called
by some "the Military-Industrial Complex," and by others "the Deep State," but by any name it
is simply agents of the billionaires who own and control US-based international corporations,
such as General Dynamics and Chevron. As a governmental official, making decisions that are in
the long-term interests of those investors is the likeliest way to become wealthy.
Consequently, Comey would have been benefitting himself, and other high officials of the
Obama Administration, by sabotaging Trump's campaign, and by weakening Trump's Presidency in
the event that he would become elected. Plus, of course, Comey would have been benefitting
Obama himself. Not only was Trump constantly condemning Obama, but Obama had appointed to lead
the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 Presidential primaries, Debbie Wasserman Schultz ,
who as early as
20 February 2007 had endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in the Democratic Party
primaries, so that Shultz was one of the earliest supporters of Clinton against even Obama
himself. In other words, Obama had appointed Shultz in order to
increase the odds that Clinton -- not Sanders -- would become the nominee in 2016 to
continue on and protect his own Presidential legacy. Furthermore, on 28 July 2016, Schultz
became forced to resign from her leadership of the DNC after WikiLeaks released emails
indicating that Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which
favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She
was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey.
In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose
Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama).
Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for
them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. He wants Warren to get the
voters who otherwise would go for Sanders, and he wants the Party's billionaires to help her
achieve this (be the Party's allegedly 'progressive' option), so that Sanders won't be able to
become a ballot option in the general election to be held on 3 November 2020.
He is telling
them whom not to help win the Party's nomination. In fact, on November 26th,
Huffington Post headlined
"Obama Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination: Report" and indicated that
though he won't actually say this in public (but only to the Party's billionaires), Obama is
determined to do all he can to prevent Sanders from becoming the nominee. In 2016, his
choice was Hillary Clinton; but, today, it's anyone other than Sanders; and, so, in a sense, it
remains what it was four years ago -- anyone but Sanders.
Comey's virtually exclusive concern, at the present stage, would be to protect himself, so
that he won't be imprisoned. This means that he might testify against Obama. At this stage,
he's free of any personal obligation to Obama -- Comey is now on his own, up against Trump, who
clearly is his enemy. Some type of back-room plea-bargain is therefore virtually inevitable --
and not only with Comey, but with other top Obama-appointees, ultimately. Obama is thus clearly
in the cross-hairs, from now on. Congressional Democrats have opted to gun against Trump (by
impeaching him); and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama -- and against the
entire Democratic Party (unless Sanders becomes its nominee, in which case, Sanders will
already have defeated that Democratic Party, and its adherents will then have to choose between
him versus Trump; and, so, too, will independent voters).
But, regardless of what happens, Obama now is in the cross-hairs. That's not just political
cross-hairs (such as an impeachment process); it is, above all, legal cross-hairs (an
actual criminal investigation). Whereas Trump is up against a doomed effort by the Democratic
Party to replace him by Vice President Mike Pence, Obama will be up against virtually
inevitable criminal charges, by the incumbent Trump Administration. Obama played hardball
against Trump, with "Russiagate," and then with "Ukrainegate"; Trump will now play hardball
against Obama, with whatever his Administration and the Republican Party manage to muster
against Obama; and the stakes this time will be considerably bigger than just whether to
replace Trump by Pence.
Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes
the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second
American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's
hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.)
There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly
increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political
realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since.
The US already has a
higher percentage of its people in prison than does any other nation on this planet.
Americans who choose a 'status-quo' option will produce less stability, more violence, not more
stability and a more peaceful nation in a less war-ravaged world. The 2020 election-outcome for
the United States will be a turning-point; there is no way that it will produce reform.
Americans who vote for reform will be only increasing the likelihood of hell-on-Earth. Reform
is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will
be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led
by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the
dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid
a free-fall into oblivion.
The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic
Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the
Deep State .
That's the reality; and the process that got us here started on 26 July 1945 and secretly continued on the American side even after
the Soviet Union ended and Russia promptly ended its side of the Cold War. The US regime's
ceaseless thrust, since 26 July 1945, to rule the entire world, will climax either in a Third
World War, or in a US revolution to overthrow and remove the Deep State and end its
dictatorship-grip over America. Both Parties have been controlled by that
Deep State , and the final stage or climax of this grip is now drawing near. America thus
has been having a string of the worst
Presidents -- and worst Congresses -- in US history. This is today's reality.
Unfortunately, a lot of American voters think that this extremely destabilizing reality, this
longstanding trend toward war, is okay, and ought to be continued, not ended now and replaced
by a new direction for this country -- the path toward world peace, which FDR had accurately
envisioned but which was aborted on 26 July 1945. No matter how many Americans might vote for
mere reform, they are wrong. Sometimes, only a minority are right. Being correct is not a
majority or minority matter; it is a true or false matter. A misinformed public can willingly
participate in its own -- or even the world's -- destruction. That could happen.
Democracy is a
prerequisite to peace, but it can't exist if the public are being systematically misinformed.
Lies and democracy don't mix together any more effectively than do oil and water.
I suspect his open-borders advocacy and Russia-bashing too are lies; these are lines of
defence against internal forces. It makes sense for him to take those positions while he
seeks the nomination. If he gets it, he can betray those positions. A serious politician has
to demonstrate a large capacity for betrayal. At the end of the day, he is a hardened
politician like the rest.
Darn Russians made people pay $1750 to $3200 to attend the debates last night and clap for
Bloomberg. The Russians also aired a long Bloomberg informercial and an anti-Medicare for All
commercial during the ad breaks - to divide us. Putin will stop at nothing.
"... Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity: ..."
"... Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist, wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire. ..."
"... Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit. ..."
"... Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked. ..."
"... If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report. NONE : ..."
"... "I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday. ..."
"... "Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government." ..."
"... Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining. ..."
"... Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent. ..."
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He
is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's
stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher,
once said
: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Over the course of the past three years, I have
watched good men and women, friends of mine, come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying
to do their best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who until this week was the
acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job: overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened
-- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity
and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security -- then there
is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation
process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an
aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a
role in that move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in discussions with the administration
about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210 days from the date of the vacancy, as
well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney General Barr's legitimate and proper
submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling
for the mass extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's "RECOMMENDATION" was just
that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess
what? Judge Berman decided that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their
enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is the fact that we are once again being
bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next?
Resurrect Jussie Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the night on the wintry
streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President
Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that
Democrats would use it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national
intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative
Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been
tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing Trump and tainting his election. The
real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled
in their elections and domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of having professional
intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more
difficult for the traditional intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat primary
dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence
should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National
Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien,
who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to portray Maguire's temporary replacement,
Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant, unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as the leader of the nation's intelligence
community in an acting capacity. This is the second acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of
Dan Coats, apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent on such critical national
security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in a time of massive national and global
security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question,
now more than ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best intelligence and analysis,
regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had
trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper.
How about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was
not an intelligence professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all elements of the intelligence community
during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S. foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and
is starting to clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the bureaucracy, is infested
with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And persons through out the National Security
bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied. This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments
expect the screaming to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date
should make people skeptical that they'll prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they would not be attacked as is happening.
The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be surrounded by those loyal to the elected
President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be competent and act with integrity. The President
pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis in England last year and the very
similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied
around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration.
Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously
connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary --
notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal
opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a
war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and Conservative - and making it amply
clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration
of intent and if it's held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump loyalist. This is the same stooge
who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button gazing to determine how after 2 decades
they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the
country into Cold War II with a real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's
ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades
the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral.
Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since WWII? BTW, Gulf Storm
doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money, transgenders, sucking up and especially
landing Beltway bandit contracts. Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of this Maguire's "service". Indeed,
all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg
to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this kind of hoax will begin to be be seen
as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of similar high profile pursuits
will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven
horror that they hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that
is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice", social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already
in jail. The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on that since too many powerful people
would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British prince.
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a
so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President
Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher, once
said : "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Over the course of the past three years, I have watched good men and women, friends of mine,
come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying to do their
best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who
until this week was the acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in
this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job:
overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their
jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened -- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When
good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and
character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than
national security -- then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and
research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was
not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet
McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard
Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some
current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a role in that
move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in
discussions with the administration about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had
never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210
days from the date of the vacancy, as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the
Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney
General Barr's legitimate and proper submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in
the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling for the mass
extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's
"RECOMMENDATION" was just that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or
coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess what? Judge Berman decided
that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law
enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd
is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is
the fact that we are once again being bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia
meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next? Resurrect Jussie
Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the
night on the wintry streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the
2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter
said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use
it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the
outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people
familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam
B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the
briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the
conclusions, arguing that he had been tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European
security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing
Trump and tainting his election. The real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing
less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled in their elections and
domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of
having professional intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another
uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more difficult for the traditional
intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat
primary dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the
effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of
meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of
Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor,
Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times
report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President
Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in
an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty
good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to
portray Maguire's temporary replacement, Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant,
unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as
the leader of the nation's intelligence community in an acting capacity. This is the second
acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of Dan Coats,
apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent
on such critical national security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it
established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in
a time of massive national and global security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and
independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question, now more than
ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best
intelligence and analysis, regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who
has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with
Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely
unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper. How
about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was not an intelligence
professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all
elements of the intelligence community during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S.
foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and is starting to
clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the
bureaucracy, is infested with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his
Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And
persons through out the National Security bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied.
This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments expect the screaming
to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this
confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date should make people skeptical that they'll
prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they
would not be attacked as is happening. The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at
Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be
surrounded by those loyal to the elected President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be
competent and act with integrity. The President pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis
in England last year and the very similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot
more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called
"The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and
maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now,
"resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying
military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not
legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the
politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as
the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years,
they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a
duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and
Conservative - and making it amply clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more
than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration of intent and if it's
held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not
tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump
loyalist.
This is the same stooge who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair
looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button
gazing to determine how after 2 decades they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to
win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the country into Cold War II with a
real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your
beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been
a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be
ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen
years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since
WWII?
BTW, Gulf Storm doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State
Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money,
transgenders, sucking up and especially landing Beltway bandit contracts.
Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of
this Maguire's "service". Indeed, all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the
Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every
candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this
kind of hoax will begin to be be seen as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of
similar high profile pursuits will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring
accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven horror that they
hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian
presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and
surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice",
social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already in jail.
The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on
that since too many powerful people would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British
prince.
Instead of settling on charges that relate to statutory crimes, with clear, concrete criteria, the Democrats have released
two articles of impeachment in which the misconduct exists largely in the eye of the beholder. Instead of settling on charges that
relate to statutory crimes, with clear, concrete criteria, the Democrats have instead released two articles of impeachment in which
the misconduct exists largely in the eye of the beholder.
First, Congress chose not to include articles of impeachment based on the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses. Democratic
members of Congress have long alleged that President Trump is illegally profiting from his business entities that cater to foreign
and state governments. Indeed, more than 200 members of Congress have sued the president in federal court, arguing that his conduct
is unconstitutional. (I have filed a series of amicus briefs arguing
that Trump's conduct amounts to poor policy, but is lawful.) Yet, the House has not even held a hearing on these once obscure provisions
of the Constitution. It would have been very difficult to make the case for impeachment based on a nonexistent record. ... ... ...
...What exactly is an abuse of power? The term is not defined in the Constitution, and indeed it resists a simple definition.
This is a crime that exists in a person's subjective judgment: One person's abuse of power is another's diplomacy.
...The House issued subpoenas to the Trump administration to assist its impeachment inquiry. In turn, the Trump administration
categorically refused to comply with all of those subpoenas. The House of Representatives then asked the courts to enforce those
subpoenas. And the Trump administration asserted various privileges, mirroring arguments they have made in prior court cases. That
litigation proceeds separately. But now the House contends that Trump's refusal to comply with the subpoenas is itself an impeachable
act. Is that theory correct? Trump will likely counter that asserting a privilege in lieu of responding to a subpoena is a well-worn
executive practice, not grounds for removal. Who is right? The Senate will decide.
The Senate is heading into uncharted territory. ... any president who refuses to comply with what he sees as an improper investigation
can be charged with "obstruction of Congress." This one-two punch can be drafted with far greater ease than were the articles of
impeachment presented against Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton.
...the predicates of the Trump articles will set a dangerous precedent, as impeachment might become -- regrettably -- a common,
quadrennial feature of our polity.
"... It was a mind-numbing spectacle, devoid of morality and ethics, the kind of political theater that characterizes despotic regimes. No one in the House chamber was protecting the Constitution. No one was seeking to hold accountable those who had violated it. No one was fighting to restore the rule of law. The two parties, which have shredded constitutional protections and rights and sold the political process to the highest bidders, have engaged in egregious constitutional violations for years and ignored them when they were made public. Moral stances have a cost, but almost no one in Congress seems willing to pay. Trying to tar Trump as a Russian agent failed. Now the Democrats hope to discredit him with charges of abuse of power and contempt of Congress. ..."
"... The politicization of the impeachment process has only exacerbated the antagonisms and polarization in the country. It has, ironically, increased support for Trump, who in this toxic environment may well be reelected. His approval rating has jumped to 45 percent, up from 39 percent when the impeachment inquiry was launched, according to the latest Gallup survey , conducted from Dec. 2 to Dec. 15. This is the third consecutive increase in Trump's approval rating. Among Republicans, Trump has a job approval rating of 89%, almost nine in 10 in the GOP. Fifty-one percent of Americans oppose impeachment and removal, up five percentage points since the House inquiry began, Gallup reports. ..."
The impeachment process was a nauseating display of moral hypocrisy. The sound bites by Republicans and Democrats swiftly became
predictable. The Democrats, despite applauding the announcement of the voting results before being quickly silenced by House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, sought to cloak themselves in gravitas and solemnity. Pelosi's calculated decision to open the impeachment proceedings
with the 1954 "under God" version of the Pledge of Allegiance was an appropriate signal given the party's New McCarthyism. The Democrats
posited themselves as saviors, the last line of defense between a constitutional democracy and tyranny. The Republicans, as cloyingly
sanctimonious as the Democrats, offered up ludicrous analogies to attack what they condemned as a show trial, including Rep. Barry
Loudermilk's statement that "Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than the Democrats have afforded to this president." The
Republicans shamelessly prostrated themselves throughout the 10-hour process at the feet of their cult leader Donald Trump, offering
abject and eternal fealty. They angrily accused the Democrats of seeking to overturn the 2016 election in a legislative coup.
It was a mind-numbing spectacle, devoid of morality and ethics, the kind of political theater that characterizes despotic regimes.
No one in the House chamber was protecting the Constitution. No one was seeking to hold accountable those who had violated it. No
one was fighting to restore the rule of law. The two parties, which have shredded constitutional protections and rights and sold
the political process to the highest bidders, have engaged in egregious constitutional violations for years and ignored them when
they were made public. Moral stances have a cost, but almost no one in Congress seems willing to pay. Trying to tar Trump as a Russian
agent failed. Now the Democrats hope to discredit him with charges of abuse of power and contempt of Congress.
The politicization of the impeachment process has only exacerbated the antagonisms and polarization in the country. It has, ironically,
increased support for Trump, who in this toxic environment may well be reelected. His approval rating has jumped to 45 percent, up
from 39 percent when the impeachment inquiry was launched, according to the latest
Gallup survey
, conducted from Dec. 2 to Dec. 15. This is the third consecutive increase in Trump's approval rating. Among Republicans, Trump
has a job approval rating of 89%, almost nine in 10 in the GOP. Fifty-one percent of Americans oppose impeachment and removal, up
five percentage points since the House inquiry began, Gallup reports.
Yes, Trump's contempt of Congress and attempt to get Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to open an investigation of
Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in exchange for almost $400 million in U.S. military aid and allowing Zelensky to visit the White
House are impeachable offenses, but trivial and minor ones compared with the constitutional violations that the two parties have
institutionalized and, I fear, made permanent. These sustained, bipartisan constitutional violations -- not Trump -- resulted in
the failure of our democracy. Trump is the pus coming out of the wound.
If the Democrats and the Republicans were committed to defending the Constitution why didn't they impeach George W. Bush when
he launched two illegal wars that were never declared by Congress as demanded by the Constitution? Why didn't they impeach Bush when
he authorized placing the entire U.S. public under government surveillance in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why didn't
they impeach Bush when he authorized torture along with kidnapping terrorist suspects around the world and holding them for years
in our black sites and offshore penal colonies? Why didn't
they impeach Barack Obama when he expanded these illegal wars to 11, if we count Yemen? Why didn't they impeach Obama when Edward
Snowden revealed that our intelligence agencies are monitoring and spying on almost every citizen and downloading our data and metrics
into government computers where they will be stored for perpetuity? Why didn't they impeach Obama when he misused the 2002 Authorization
for Use of Military Force to erase due process and give the executive branch of government the right to act as judge, jury and executioner
in assassinating U.S. citizens, starting with the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and, two weeks later, his 16-year-old son? Why didn't
they impeach Obama when he signed into law Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, in effect overturning the 1878
Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military as a domestic police force?
There are other bipartisan constitutional violations, including violating treaty clauses that are supposed to be ratified by the
Senate, violating the Constitution by making appointments without seeking Senate confirmation, and the routine abusive use of executive
orders. But the two major political parties, salivating at the thought of wielding the king-like power that now comes with the presidency,
have no desire to curb these far more dangerous violations.
The selective use of the two violations to impeach Trump is a weaponization of the impeachment process. Should the Democrats take
control of the White House and the Republicans control of the Congress, impeachment, with or without merit, will become another form
of political pressure exerted within our dysfunctional and divided political system. The rule of law will be a pretense, as in the
current process of impeachment and Senate trial.
The impeachment circus, which will culminate in a preordained, choreographed and televised show in the Senate, coincided with
The Washington Post's release of what is being called the
Afghanistan Papers . The Post, through a three-year legal battle, obtained more than 2,000 pages of internal government documents
about the war. The papers detail bipartisan lies, fraud, deceit, corruption, waste and gross mismanagement during the 18-year conflict,
the longest in U.S. history. It is a blistering indictment of the ruling class, which, as the papers note, since 2001 has seen the
Defense Department, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development spend or win appropriation of between $934 billion
and $978 billion, according to an inflation-adjusted estimate calculated by Neta Crawford, a political science professor and co-director
of the Costs of War Project at Brown University. "These figures," the Post adds, "do not include money spent by other agencies such
as the CIA and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is responsible for medical care for wounded veterans." [
See Chris Hedges discuss the Afghanistan Papers with Spenser
Rapone, a West Point graduate who served as an Army Ranger in Afghanistan.]
This window into the inner workings of our bankrupt ruling elite, responsible for widespread destruction and the loss of tens,
perhaps hundreds, of thousands of lives in Afghanistan, was largely ignored by the media during the impeachment proceedings. Neither
political party, and none of their courtiers on the cable news shows, is interested in exposing the bipartisan failure, lying and
grotesque incompetence on the part of the United States in the years it has occupied Afghanistan. Afghan and U.S. officials concede
that the Taliban is stronger now than at any other time since the 2001 invasion.
In a functioning democracy, the publication of the Afghanistan Papers would see generals and politicians who knowingly deceived
the public hauled before congressional committees. The Fulbright hearings, during the Vietnam War, although they did not lead to
prosecutions, at least aggressively held U.S. officials to account and made public their duplicity and failure. But in the wake of
the new disclosures, no one in either political party or the military will be held accountable for the debacle in Afghanistan, a
conflict that saw a vast waste of resources, including nearly a trillion dollars that could have been used to address our pronounced
social inequality, rebuild our decaying infrastructure and help end our reliance on fossil fuels.
The Afghanistan Papers lay bare a truth the hyperventilating Republican and Democratic mandarins in Congress prefer to mask. On
all the major structural issues -- war, the economy, the use of militarized police and the world's largest prison system for social
control, the infusion of corporate money to deform the electoral and legislative processes, slashing taxes for the wealthy and corporations,
exploitative trade deals, austerity, the climate emergency and the rapidly accelerating government debt -- there is little or no
difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
The political clashes are not substantive, despite what we heard in the impeachment hearings. They are rhetorical and largely
inconsequential. The Republicans and the Democrats recently passed a $738 billion defense bill for fiscal year 2020, a $21 billion
increase over what was enacted for fiscal year 2019. The vote was a lopsided 377 to 48. The U.S. spends more on its military than
the next 10 countries combined. Also, a day after the impeachment of President Trump, the Republicans and Democrats in the House
passed a thinly veiled rewrite of the Clinton administration's North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the 25-year-old free
trade agreement that hollowed out our manufacturing centers and sent U.S. jobs and production to Mexico. Again, the vote was lopsided,
385 to 41. When the wealthy and our corporate masters want something done, it gets done. Our elected officials serve them, not us.
We are to be controlled.
The Republican and Democratic politicians, like the generals, government bureaucrats and intelligence chiefs, once they leave
their government posts will be generously rewarded by being given jobs as lobbyists and consultants or being appointed to corporate
boards. These politicians are the mutant products of our system of legalized bribery,
shameless
kleptocrats . The only interests they serve are their own. This truth binds half the country to Trump, who although a con artist
and himself flagrantly corrupt, at least belittles and mocks the ruling elites who have betrayed us.
Trump and his supporters are not wrong in condemning the deep state -- the generals, bankers, corporatists, lobbyists, intelligence
chiefs, government bureaucrats and technocrats who oversee domestic and international policy no matter who is in power. The Afghanistan
Papers, while detailing the quagmire in Afghanistan -- where more than 775,000 Americans were deployed over the 18 years, more than
2,300 soldiers and Marines killed and more than 20,000 wounded -- also illustrate how seamlessly the two ruling parties and the deep
state work together.
"What did we get for this $1 trillion effort? Was it worth $1 trillion?" Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL and White House staffer
for Bush and Obama, is quoted as saying by The Washington Post. "After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably
laughing in his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan."
The Post writes , "The documents also contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents, military commanders
and diplomats who assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting.
Several of those interviewed described explicit and sustained efforts by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public.
They said it was common at military headquarters in Kabul -- and at the White House -- to distort statistics to make it appear the
United States was winning the war when that was not the case."
"As commanders in chief, Bush, Obama and Trump all promised the public the same thing," the Post notes. "They would avoid falling
into the trap of 'nation-building' in Afghanistan. On that score, the presidents failed miserably. The United States has allocated
more than $133 billion to build up Afghanistan -- more than it spent, adjusted for inflation, to revive the whole of Western Europe
with the Marshall Plan after World War II."
There is no difference, the Afghanistan Papers make clear, in the mendacity and incompetence of the policymaking apparatus no
matter who controls Congress or the White House. No party or elected official dares defy the military-industrial complex or other
titans of the deep state. The Democrats through impeachment have no intention of restoring constitutional rights that would curb
the power of the deep state and protect democracy. The deep state funds them. It sustains them in office. The Democrats are seeking
to replace the inept and vulgar face of empire that is Trump with the benign and decorous face of empire that is Joe Biden. What
the Democrats, and the deep state that has allied itself with the Democratic Party, object to is the mask, not what is behind it.
If you doubt me, read the six-part series on Afghanistan in the Post.
Columnist Chris Hedges is a Truthdig columnist, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling author, a professor
in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by Rutgers
This is not "the reputation for hyperbole". This is attempt to defend the interests of MIC, including the
interests of intelligence agencies themselves in view of deteriorating financial position of the USA. And first of all the level
of the current funding. Like was the case in 2016 elections, the intelligence
agencies and first of all CIA should now be considered as the third party participating in the
2020 election which attempts to be the kingmaker. They are interested in continuing and intensifying the Cold War 2, as it secured
funding for them and MIC (of this they are essential part)
Notable quotes:
"... The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to CNN . ..."
"... " The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker." - CNN ..."
"... To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received. ..."
"... No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of treason ..."
"... Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia, executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui ..."
The US intelligence community's top election security official who appears to have
overstated Russian interference in the 2020 election has a history of hyperbole - described
by the
Wall Street Journal as "a reputation for being injudicious with her words."
The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's
formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance
during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to
CNN .
The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that
Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump
get reelected .
The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020
election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work
with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at
reelecting Trump , the officials said.
" The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN.
"A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference,
it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can
work with, he's a dealmaker." -
CNN
Pierson was reportedly peppered with questions from the House Intelligence Committee,
which 'caused her to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be
reelected,' according to the report. CNN notes that one intelligence official said that her
characterization was "misleading," while a national security official said she failed to
provide the "nuance" required to put the US intelligence conclusions in proper context.
To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked
to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked
back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received.
Sound familiar?
No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of
treason
Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia,
executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever
dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui
This is mostly fear mongering as an affective bioengineered virus will create a pandemic, but
the truth is that Anthrax false flag attack after 9/11 was not an accident...
Trump administration beahaves like a completely lawless gang (stealing Syrian oil is one
example. Killing Soleimani is another ) , as for its behaviour on international arena, but I do
not believe they go that far. Even for for such "ruptured" gangster as Pompeo
Notable quotes:
"... Consider that a deadly virus created by the U.S. and used against another country was found out and verified, and in retaliation, that country or others decided to strike back with other toxic agents against America. Where would this end, and over time, how many billions could be affected in such a scenario? ..."
"... "In vast laboratories in the Ministry of Peace, and in experimental stations, teams of experts are indefatigably at work searching for new and deadlier gases; or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents; or for breeds of disease germs immunised against all possible antibodies." ..."
"... Additional notes: here , here , here , here , here and here . ..."
Interestingly, in the past, U.S. universities and NGOs went to China
specifically to do illegal biological experimentation, and this was so egregious to Chinese
officials, that forcible removal of these people was the result. Harvard University, one of the
major players in this scandal, stole the DNA samples of hundreds of thousands of Chinese
citizens, left China with those samples, and continued illegal bio-research in the U.S. It is
thought that the U.S. military, which puts a completely different spin on the conversation, had
commissioned the research in China at the time. This is more than suspicious.
The U.S. has, according to this
article at Global Research ,
had a massive biological warfare program since at least the early 1940s, but has used toxic
agents against this country and others since the 1860s . This is no secret, regardless of the
propaganda spread by the government and its partners in criminal bio-weapon research and
production.
As of 1999, the U.S. government had deployed its Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW)
arsenal against the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia,
Cuba, Haitian boat people, and our neighbor Canada according to this article at
Counter Punch . Of course, U.S.
citizens have been used as guinea pigs many times as well, and exposed to toxic germ agents and
deadly chemicals by government.
Keep in mind that this is a short list, as the U.S. is well known for also using proxies to
spread its toxic chemicals and germ agents, such as happened in Iraq and Syria. Since 1999
there have been continued incidences of several different viruses, most of which are presumed
to be
manmade , including the current Coronavirus that is affecting China today.
There is also much evidence of the research and development of race-specific bio-warfare
agents. This is very troubling. One would think, given the idiotic race arguments by
post-modern Marxists, that this would consume the mainstream news, and any participants in
these atrocious race-specific poisons would be outed at every level. That is not happening, but
I believe it is due to obvious reasons, including government cover-up, hypocrisy at all levels,
and leftist agenda driven objectives that would not gain ground with the exposure of this
government-funded anti-race science.
I will say that it is not just the U.S. that is developing and producing bio-warfare agents
and viruses, but many developed countries around the globe do so as well. But the United
States, as is the case in every area of war and killing, is by far the world leader in its
inhuman desire to be able to kill entire populations through biological and chemical warfare
means. Because these agents are extremely dangerous and uncontrollable, and can spread wildly,
the risk to not only isolated populations, but also the entire world is evident. Consider
that a deadly virus created by the U.S. and used against another country was found out and
verified, and in retaliation, that country or others decided to strike back with other toxic
agents against America. Where would this end, and over time, how many billions could be
affected in such a scenario?
All indications point to the fact that the most toxic, poisonous, and deadly viruses ever
known are being created in labs around the world. In the U.S. think of Fort Detrick, Maryland,
Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, Horn Island, Mississippi, Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, Vigo
Ordinance Plant, Indiana, and many others. Think of the fascist partnerships between this
government and the pharmaceutical industry. Think of the U.S. military installations positioned
all around the globe. Nothing good can come from this, as it is not about finding cures for
disease, or about discovering vaccines, but is done for one reason only, and that is for the
purpose of bio-warfare for mass killing.
The drive to find biological weapons that will sicken and kill millions at a time is not
only a travesty, but is beyond evil. This power is held by the few, but the potential victims
of this madness include everyone on earth. How can such insanity at this level be allowed to
continue? If any issue could ever unite the masses, governments participating in biological and
germ warfare, race-specific killing, and creating viruses with the potential to affect disease
and death worldwide, should cause many to stand together against it. The first step is to
expose that governments, the most likely culprit being the U.S. government, are planting these
viruses purposely to cause great harm. Once that is proven, the unbelievable risk to all will
be known, and then people everywhere should put their divisiveness aside, stand together, and
stop this assault on mankind.
"In vast laboratories in the Ministry of Peace, and in experimental stations, teams of
experts are indefatigably at work searching for new and deadlier gases; or for soluble
poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole
continents; or for breeds of disease germs immunised against all possible antibodies." ~
George Orwell – 1984
"... In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what? We're
trying to build a completely new society.' ..."
"... And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. ..."
I'd never heard of the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG) until today, even though it turns out that one of its members
has the office next door to mine. Its
website says that
it seeks to respond to the challenge of East-West tensions by convening 'former and current officials and experts from a group of
Euro-Atlantic states and the European union to test ideas and develop proposals for improving security in areas of existential common
interest'. It hopes thereby to 'generate trust through dialogue.'
It's hard to object to any of this, but its latest
statement , entitled 'Twelve Steps Toward Greater Security in Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic Region', doesn't inspire a lot of
confidence. The 'twelve steps' the EASLG proposes to improve security in Eastern Ukraine are generally pretty uninspiring, being
largely of the 'set up a working group to explore' variety, or of such a vaguely aspirational nature as to be almost worthless (e.g.
'Advance reconstruction of Donbas An essential first step is to conduct a credible needs assessment for the Donbas region to inform
a strategy for its social-economic recovery.' Sounds nice, but in reality doesn't amount to a hill of beans).
For the most part, these proposals attempt to treat the symptoms of the war in Ukraine without addressing the root causes. In
a sense, that's fine, as symptoms need treating, but it's sticking plaster when the patient needs some invasive surgery. At the end
of its statement, though, the EASLG does go one step further with 'Step 12: Launch a new national dialogue about identity', saying:
A new, inclusive national dialogue across Ukraine is desirable and could be launched as soon as possible. Efforts should be
made to engage with perspectives from Ukraine's neighbors, especially Poland, Hungary, and Russia. This dialogue should address
themes of history and national memory, language, identity, and minority experience. It should include tolerance and respect for
ethnic and religious minorities in order to increase engagement, inclusiveness, and social cohesion.
This is admirably trendy and woke, but in the Ukrainian context somewhat explosive, as it implicitly challenges the identity politics
of the post-Maidan regime. Unsurprisingly, it's gone down like a lead balloon in Kiev. The notorious website Mirotvorets even
went so far as to add former
German ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger to its blacklist of enemies of Ukraine for having had the temerity to sign the EASLG statement
and thus 'taking part in Russia's propaganda events aimed against Ukraine.' Katherine Quinn-Judge of the International Crisis Group
commented on Twitter, 'As the idea of dialogue
becomes more mainstream, backlash to the concept grows fiercer.' 'In Ukraine, prominent pro-Western politicians, civic activists,
and media, have called Step 12 "a provocation" and "dangerous",' she added
Quinn-Judge comes across as generally sympathetic to the Ukrainian narrative about the war in Donbass, endorsing the idea that
it's largely a product of 'Russian aggression'. But she also recognizes that the war has an internal, social dimension which the
Ukrainian government and its elite-level supporters refuse to acknowledge. Consequently, they also reject any sort of dialogue, either
with Russia or with the rebels in Donbass. As Quinn-Judge notes in another Tweet:
An advisor to one of Ukraine's most powerful pol[itician]s told us recently of his concern about talk of dialogue in international
and domestic circles. 'We have all long ago agreed among ourselves. We need to return our territory, and then work with that sick
– sick – population.'
This isn't an isolated example. Quinn-Judge follows up with a couple more similar statements:
Social resentments underpin some opposition to disengagement, for example. An activist in [government-controlled] Shchastye
told me recently that she feared disengagement and the reopening of the bridge linking the isolated town to [rebel-held] Luhansk:
'I don't want all that trash coming over here.'
In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what?
We're trying to build a completely new society.'
And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. You can fiddle with treating Donbass' symptoms as much as you like, ŕ la EASLG,
but unless you tackle this fundamental problem, the disease will keep on ravaging the subject for a long time to come. In due course,
I suggest, the only realistic cure will be to remove the patient entirely from the cause of infection.
All that you have described above is very sad, but not very surprising – which is itself very sad. I think Patrick Armstrong is
right that a lot of the reason Ukraine is not and has never been a functional polity is because much if not most of the population
cannot accept that the right side won WWII.
Contempt and loathing towards the Donbass is a pretty popular feeling amongst Ukrainian svidomy. E.g., one of the two regular
pro-Ukrainian commenters on my blog.
To his credit, he supports severing the Donbass from Ukraine (as one would a gangrenous limb – his metaphor) as opposed to
trying to claw it back. Which is an internally consistent position.
Same guy who doesn't consider Yanukovych as having been overthrown under coup like circumstances, while downplaying Poland's
past subjugation of Rus territory.
In Part I and II we saw how much truth is there in Herr Karlin's claim of being a model of the rrrracially purrrre Rrrrrrrussian
plus some personal views.
Part III (this one) gives a peek into his cultural and upbringing limits, which "qualify" him as an expert of all things Russian,
who speaks on behalf of the People and the Country.
" I left when I was six, in 1994 , so I'm not really the best person to ask this question of – it should probably be directed
to my parents, or even better, the Russian government at the time which had for all intents and purposes ceased paying academics
their salaries.
I went to California for higher education and because its beaches and mountains made for a nice change from the bleakness of
Lancashire.
I returned to Russia because if I like Putler so much, why don't I go back there? Okay, less flippancy. I am Russian, I
do not feel like a foreigner here, I like living in Moscow, added bonus is that I get much higher quality of life for the buck
than in California ."
"I never went to school, don't have any experience with writing in Russian, and have been overexposed to Anglo culture ,
so yes, it's no surprise that my texts will sound strange."
The Russian branch of Carnegie Endowment did a piece on this issue. It mostly fits your ideas, but the author suggests it was
a compromise, short-term solution – what steps can be taken right now, without crossing red lines of either side – but compromise
is unwelcome among both parties. The official Russian reaction was quite cold too.
Upon a quick perusal of the website of the org at issue, Alexey Arbatov and Susan Eisenhower have some kind of affiliation
with it, thus maybe explaining the compromise approach you mention.
This matter brings to mind Trump saying one thing during his presidential bid – only to then bring in people in key positions
who don't agree with what he campaigned on.
In terms of credentials and name status, the likes of Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Stephen Cohen and Jim Jatras, are needed in
Trump's admin for the purpose of having a more balanced foreign policy approach that conforms with US interests (not to be necessarily
confused with what neocons and neolibs favor).
Instead, Trump has been top heavy with geopolitical thinking opposites. He possibly thought that having them in would take
some of the criticism away from him.
The arguably ideal admin has both sides of an issue well represented, with the president intelligently deciding what's best.
On the BBC and on other media there are films of Ukrainians attacking a bus with people evacuated from China. These people
even wanted to burn down the hospital where the peoplew were taken (along with other unrelated patients)
This is a sign of a degraded society – attacking people who may or may not be ill!!!
Ukraine will eventually break up
The nationalist agenda is just degrading the society.
-The economy is failing
-People who can, are leaving
-The elected government has no control over the violent people who take to the streets
It's clear Zelensky is a puppet no different to Poroshenko – this destroys the idea that democracy is a good thing.
It's very sad that the EU and the Americans under Obama – empowered these decisive elements and then blame Russia.
Crimea did the right thing leaving Ukraine – Donbass hopefully will follow.
"And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass"
[ ]
Only them?
[ ]
Yesterday marks yet another milestone on the Ukrainian glorious шлях перемог and long and arduous return to the Family
of the European Nations. The Civil Society ™ of the Ukraine rose as one in the mighty CoronavirusMaidan, against the jackbooted
goons of the crypto-Napoleon (and agent of Putin) Zelensky. Best people from Poltava oblast' (whose ancestors without doubt, welcomed
Swedish Euro-integrators in 1709) and, most important of all, from the Best (Western) Ukrajina, who 6 years ago made the Revolution
of Dignity in Kiev the reality and whom pan Poroshenko called the best part of the Nation, said their firm "Геть вiд Москви!"
to their fellow Ukrainian citizens, evacuated from Wuhan province in China
The Net is choke full of vivid, memorable videos, showing that 6 years after Maidan, the Ukraine now constitute a unified,
эдiна та соборна country. You all, no doubt, already watched these clips, where a brave middle-aged gentleman from the
Western Ukraine, racially pure Ukr, proves his mental acuity by deducing, that crypto-tyrant (and "не лох") Zelensky wants to
settle evacuees in his pristine oblast out of vengeance, because the Best Ukrajina didn't vote for him during the election. Or
a clip about a brave woman from Poltava oblast, suggesting to relocate the Trojan-horse "fellow countrymen" to Chernobol's Zone.
Or even the witty comments and suggestions by the paragons of the Ukrainian Civil Society, " волонтэры ":
Shy and conscientious members of the Ukrainian (national!) intelligentsia had their instincts aligned rrrrrright. When they
learned about that their hospital will be the one receiving the evacuees from Wuhan, the entire medical personell of that Poltava
oblast medical facility rose to their feet and sang "Shenya vmerla". Democracy and localism proved once again the strongest suit
of the pro-European Ukraine, with Ternopol's oblast regional council voting to accept the official statement to the crypto-tyrant
Zelensky, which calls attempts to place evacuees on their Holy land "an act of Genocide of the Ukrainian People" (c)
That's absolutely "normal", predictable reaction of the "racially pure Ukrainians" to their own fellow citizens. Now, Professor,
are you insisting on seeking or even expecting "compromise" with them ? What to do, if after all these years, there is
no such thing as the united Ukrainian political nation?
"Ukraine's democracy is flourishing like never before due to the tireless efforts of grassroots, pro-democracy, civil-society
groups. Many Ukrainians say their country is now firmly set on an irreversible, pro-Western trajectory. Moreover, the country
has also undertaken a top-to-bottom cultural, economic, and political divorce from its former Soviet overlord.
Today, Ukraine is a democratic success story in the making, despite Russia's best efforts to the contrary."
– Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal's foreign
correspondent based in Ukraine
From comments (Is the USA government now a "regime"): In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from
the budget for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them). Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of
blowing up wedding parties with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where else. Regimes carry
out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than Qasem Soleimani. Regimes use their economic power to bully and
impose their will – sanctioning countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death of
500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?). Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty,
for example. Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian Assange. Regimes imprison people. America
is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's
population), that's 25% of the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many prisoners?
Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following journalists and organisations kicked off
numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say
but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil,
rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped together by using another favourite presstitute
term – 'axis of evil'. America has its own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women hating,
head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide (assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist,
genocidal undeclared nuclear power state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about…ooh…let's think. Last year's treatment of child refugees from Latin
America, the execution of African Americans for 'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the
millions of dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police force under 'civil forfeiture'
laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent,
effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm….just like America financed terrorists to help destroy Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion
dollars to install another regime – the one of anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine…
Highly recommended!
Some comments edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. ..."
"... "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." ..."
"... Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today's generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests. ..."
"... When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today's failing wars. ..."
"... The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson ; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques. ..."
"... Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star. ..."
"... At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with " professionalization " after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most citizens had. ..."
"... One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day. ..."
"... That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the " revolving door " in Washington. ..."
"... Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's the pity... ..."
"... Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads. ..."
"... Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks. "They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw). ..."
"... Today, the "Masters of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as "Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended! ..."
"... "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels ..."
"... The greatest anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti: ..."
"... The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. ..."
There once lived an odd little man - five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds
sopping wet - who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist
insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to
history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction
of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30
years later, as one of this country's most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist
dissidents.
Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of
an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America's " Banana Wars " from 1898 to
1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would
retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.
A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese
Boxer Rebellion
of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief
of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine
Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might
today be labeled peacekeeping , counterinsurgency , and
advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those
imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, " Dollar Diplomacy "
operations -- that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests
-- until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.
But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the
imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he'd only recently played such
a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic
passage in his memoir, which he
titled "War Is a Racket," he wrote:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during
that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the Bankers."
Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed
antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly
anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America,
at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war
interventionists would pejoratively label American " isolationism ."
Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his
unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American
militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former
admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist
press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later
France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler's
virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.
Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism
and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply
misguided. In the wake of America's brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the
skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about
intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however,
his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin
America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the
most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending
war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)
Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different
sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats
itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between
the careers of Butler and today's generation of
forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned
wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans
to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia,
but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed
economic and imperial interests.
Nonetheless, whereas this country's imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth
century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this
century hasn't produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that
is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national
culture, none of it particularly encouraging.
Why No Antiwar Generals
When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding
a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with
about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major
generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a
single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised,
remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star
generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are
more of them today than
there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about
half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a
public critic of today's failing wars.
Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired
colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as
enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it
disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired
military figures who has spoken out against America's forever wars.
The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson ;
Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and
Afghan War
whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have
proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished
personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired
senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.
Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel.
Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn't
make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a
few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a
selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next
colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that, according
to numerous reports , "the
members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their
own image -- officers whose careers look like theirs." At a minimal level, such a system is
hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.
Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received
criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the
highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that
theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted
to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star.
Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a
major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted
counterinsurgency or " COINdinista "
protégés and their " new " war-fighting doctrine had the
magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus
tried to apply those very tactics twice -- once in each country -- as did acolytes of his
later, and you know the results
of that.
But here's the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America's most acclaimed
general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then,
been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also
strangely familiar) tactics in this country's wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for
such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less
a crew of future Smedley Butlers.
At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with "
professionalization
" after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the
citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft,
and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted
by critics at the time,
created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding
America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most
citizens had.
More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization
of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley
Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or
colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak
gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he's turned out to be
just another yes-man
for another
war-power -hungry president.
One group of generals, however,
reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to
endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military
advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.
What Would Smedley Butler Think
Today?
In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of
America's imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the
elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed
and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though
less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America's post-9/11 conflicts,
even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the
only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital,
Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out
far more
subtly than that, both
abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top
weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.
That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on
steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly
move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality
which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the
corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say,
United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to
be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say
about the modern phenomenon of the "
revolving door " in Washington.
Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop
levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote
for leftist publications and supported
the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found
today's
nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former
Marine long ago identified as a treacherous
nexus between warfare and capital "in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses
in lives" seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in
point: the record (and still
rising ) "defense" spending of the present moment, including -- to please a president --
the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of
space .
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly
trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly
decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around
those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the
military system of our moment.
Of course, Butler didn't exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25
pounds due to illness and exhaustion -- and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but
still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule -- he checked himself into the Philadelphia
Navy Yard Hospital for a "rest." He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks
later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again
antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time
Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.
Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today.
Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement,
Butler himself boldly
confessed that, "like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical..."
Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's
the pity...
2 minutes ago
Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film
distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while
using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads.
14 minutes ago
TULSI GABBARD.
Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks.
"They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education
system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw).
The US Space Force has been created as part of a plan to disclose the deep state's Secret
Space Program (SSP), which has been active for decades, and which has utilized, and repressed,
advanced technologies that would provide free, unlimited renewable energy, and thus eliminate
hunger and poverty on a planetary scale.
14 minutes ago
What imperialism?
We are spreading freedumb and dumbocracy.
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution
Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be
to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the
Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military
system of our moment.
This is why I feel an oath keeping constitutionally oriented American
general is what we need in power, clear out all 545 criminals in office now,
review their finances (and most of them will roll over on the others) and
punish accordingly, then the lobbyist, how many of them worked against the
country? You know what we do with those.
And then, finally, Hollywood, oh yes I long to see that **** hole burn with
everyone in it.
30 minutes ago
Republicrat: the two faces of the moar war whore.
32 minutes ago
Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind
Do tell, from what I've read the Nazis were really only a threat to a few
groups, the rest of us didn't need to worry.
35 minutes ago
Today, the "Masters
of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as
"Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the
public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible
expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended!
Why are we sending our children out into the hellholes of the world to be
maimed and killed in the fauxjew banksters' quest for world domination.
How stupid can we be!
41 minutes ago
(Edited) "Smedley Butler"... The last
time the UCMJ was actually used before being permanently turned into a "door
stop"!
49 minutes ago
He was correct about our staying out of WWII. Which, BTW,
would have never happened if we had stayed out of WWI.
22 minutes ago
(Edited)
Both wars were about the international fauxjew imposition of debt-money central
bankstering.
Both wars were promulgated by the Financial oligarchyof New York. The communist Red Army
of Russia was funded and supplied by the Financial oligarchyof New York. It was American Financial oligarchythat built the Russian Red Army that vexed the world and created the Cold War.
How many hundreds of millions of goyim were sacrificed to create both the
Russian and the Chinese Satanic behemoths.......and the communist horror that
is now embedded in American academia, publishing, American politics, so-called
news, entertainment, The worldwide Catholic religion, the Pentagon, and the
American deep state.......and more!
How stupid can we be. Every generation has the be dragged, kicking and
screaming, out of the eternal maw of historical ignorance to avoid falling back
into the myriad dark hellholes of history. As we all should know, people who
forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.
53 minutes ago
Today's
General is a robot with with a DNA.
54 minutes ago
All the General Staff is a
bunch of #asskissinglittlechickenshits
57 minutes ago
want to stop senseless
Empire wars>>well do this
War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit.. If we taxed all
war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start? 1 hour ago
Here
is a simple straightforward trading maxim that might apply here: if it works or
is working keep doing it, but if it doesn't work or stops working, then STOP
doing it. There are plenty of people, now poorer, for not adhering to that
simple principle. Where is the Taxpayer's return on investment from the Combat
taking place on their behalf around the globe? 'Nuff said - it isn't working.
It is making a microscopic few richer & all others poorer so STOP doing it.
36 seconds ago We don't have to look far to figure out who they are that are
getting rich off the fauxjew permawars.
How can we be so stupid???
1 hour ago
See also:
TULSI GABBARD
1 hour ago
The main reason you don't see the generals
criticizing is that the current crop have not been in actual long term direct
combat with the enemy and have mostly been bureaucratic paper pushers.
Take the
Marine Major General who is the current commander of CENTCOM. By the time he
got into the Iraq/Afghanistan war he was already a Lieutenant Colonel and far
removed from direct action.
He was only there on and off for a few years. Here
are some of his other career highlights aft as they appear on his official
bio:
2006-07: he served as the Military Secretary to the 33rd and 34th
Commandants of the Marine Corps
2008: he was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the
Director of the Chairman's New Administration Transition Team (CNATT)
2009: he reported to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Kabul, Afghanistan to serve as the Deputy to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS)
for Stability. ..... Deputy to the Deputy for Stability ???? WTF is that?
2010: he was assigned as the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J-5) for
the U.S. Central Command
2012: he reported to Headquarters Marine Corps to serve as the Marine Corps
Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review
In short, these top guys aren't warriors they're bureaucrats so why would we
expect them to be honest brokers of the truth?
51 minutes ago
are U saying
Chesty Puller he's NOT? 1 hour ago
(Edited) The purpose of war is to ensure
that the
Federal Reserve Note remains the world reserve paper currency of choice by
keeping it relevant and in demand across the globe by forcing pesky energy
producing nations to trade with it exclusively.
It is a 49 year old policy created by the private owners of quasi public
institutions called
central banks to ensure they remain the Wizards of Oz
doing gods work conjuring magic paper into existence with a secret
spell known as issuing credit.
How else is a technologically advanced society of billions of people
supposed to function w/out this
divinely inspired paper?
1 hour ago
Goebbels in "Churchill's Lie Factory"
where he said: "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one
should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of
looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik,"
12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
1 hour ago
The greatest
anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti:
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last
four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous
peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any
serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.
When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so
that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or
"dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).
Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In
this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
"Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world
history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while
oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is
seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and
political leaders."
Why would it when they who control academia, media and most of our
politicians are our enemies.
1 hour ago
"The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of
staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence
Wilkerson ; ..."
Yep, Wilkerson, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, not that it was a leak, to
Novak, and then stood by to watch the grand jury fry Scooter Libby. Wilkerson,
that paragon of moral rectitude. Wilkerson the silent, that *******.
sheesh,
1 hour ago
(Edited)
" A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence
against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals
of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European
imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German
business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and
exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of
concentration camps. - M. PARENTI, Against empire
See Alexander Parvus
1 hour ago
Collapse is the cure. It's
too far gone.
1 hour ago
Russia Wants to 'Jam' F-22 and F-35s in the Middle
East: Report
ZH retards think that the American mic is bad and all other mics are
good or don't exist. That's the power of brainwashing. Humans understand that
war in general is bad, but humans are becoming increasingly rare in this world.
1 hour ago
The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and
in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as
these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people
who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not
those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its
finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in
the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to
poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never
how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to
deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more
power.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and
power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million
fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if
we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money
and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are
enthusiastically supporting the war effort.
The swamp is bigger than the military alone. Substitute Bureaucrat,
Statesman, or Beltway Bandit for General and Colonel in your writing above and
you've got a whole new article to post that is just as true.
2 hours ago
(Edited) War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit..If we taxed
all war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start?
2 hours ago [edited for clarity]
War is a racket. And nobody loves a
racket more than Financial oligarchy. Americans come close though, that's why Financial oligarchy use them to
project their own rackets and provide protection reprisals.
She does not use the term neoliberalism but she provide interesting perspective about
connection of neoliberalism and Trotskyism. It is amazing fact that most of them seriously
studied communist ideology at universities.
Trotskyites are never constrained by morality and they are obsessed with raw power
(especially political power) and forceful transformation of the society. They are for global dominance so they were early
adherents of "Full spectrum Dominance" doctirne approporitated later be US neocons. Their Dream -- global run from Washington
neoliberal empire is a mirror of the dream of Trotskyites of global communist empire run from Moscow (Trotsky "Permanent war" till
the total victory of communism idea)
Inability to understand that neoliberal is undermines Diana West thinking, but still she is a good researcher and she managed
to reveal some interesting facts and tendencies. She intuitively understand that both are globalist ideologies, but that
about all she managed to understand. Bad for former DIA specialist on the USSR and former colleague of Colonel Lang (see
Sic Semper Tyrannis)
It is funny that Sanders is being accused of being a 'self-identified' socialist, while neoliberal elite is shoulder-deep in socialism for the 1%
and enjoy almost unlimited access to free Fed funds.
I received my copy just a few days before the Mueller investigation closed shop. There is
an old saying "You can't tell the players without a program." As the aftermath of the Mueller
investigation begins, you need this book. Some pundits and observers of the political scene
have observed that the Mueller investigation didn't come about because of any real concern
about "Trump Russia collusion," it was manufactured to protect the deep state from a
non-political interloper. That's the case Diana West makes and does it with her exceptional
knowledge of the Cold War and the current jihad wars. Not to mention her deadly aim with her
rhetorical darts.
The Red Thread by Diana West
Diana states, "the anti-Trump conspiracy is not about Democrats and Republicans. It is not
about the ebb and flow of political power, lawfully and peacefully transferred. It is about
globalists and nationalists, just as the president says. They are locked in the old and
continuous Communist/anti-Communist struggle, and fighting to the end, whether We, the
anti-Communists, recognize it or not."
Diana traces the Red Thread running through the swamp, she names names and relates the
history of the Red players. She asks the questions, Why? Why so many Soviet-style acts of
deception perpetrated from inside the federal government against the American electoral
process? Why so many uncorroborated dossiers of Russian provenance influencing our politics?
Why such a tangle of communist and socialist roots in the anti-Trump conspiracy?
In this book, these questions will be answered.
If you have read her book "American Betrayal," I'm sure you will have a good idea about
what is going on. I did. I just didn't know the major players and the red history behind each
of them.
The book is very interesting and short, only 104 pages, but it is not finished yet. Easy
to read but very disturbing to know the length and width of the swamp, the depth, we may not
know for a long time. I do feel better knowing that there are people like Diana uncovering
and shining a light into the darkness. Get the book, we all need to know why this is
happening and who the enemies are behind it. Our freedom depends on it.
Was anyone aware that in 1991 in the Ukraine almost 100% of the population had indoor running
water, but as of 2014 that was down to 87%? I'm talking of the western portion of the Ukraine
here and not the part being attacked by neo-Nazis where it is unsurprising that
infrastructure is being destroyed.
I was curious what happened to the Ukraine's infrastructure since the Soviet Union was
dissolved so I asked some Ukrops what was up. Apparently Putin himself has been sneaking into
the Ukraine at night and stealing the plumbing right out of people's houses. I kid thee not!
Putin did it! Ukrops wouldn't lie about that, would they?
If you think what Putin is doing to America is bad, then just be thankful you are not in
Ukropistan! Over there Putin causes people to stub their toes on the furniture when they get
out of bed to take a leak at night. He tricks people into not bringing their umbrellas on
days that it rains. He even causes babies to foul their diapers right after they were
changed. Putin's evil knows no bounds!
"... Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020 election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here." ..."
"... Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The Nation added that "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke." ..."
"... On Wednesday, Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and "Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much more credible. ..."
"... Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump, or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal, mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. ..."
"... Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the blame they deserve themselves. ..."
"... What the ZOG wants the ZOG gets ..."
"... It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy. ..."
"... The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian ..."
One of the more interesting aspects of the nauseating impeachment trial in the Senate was
the repeated vilification of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.
To hate Russia has become dogma on both sides of the political aisle, in part because no
politician has really wanted to confront the lesson of the 2016 election, which was that most
Americans think that the federal government is basically incompetent and staffed by career
politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell who should return back home and get real jobs
.
Worse still, it is useless, and much like the one trick pony the only thing it can do is
steal money from the taxpayers and waste it on various types of self-gratification that only
politicians can appreciate. That means that the United States is engaged is fighting multiple
wars against make-believe enemies while the country's infrastructure rots and a host of
officially certified grievance groups control the public space.
It sure doesn't look like Kansas anymore.
The fact that opinion polls in Europe suggest that many Europeans would rather have Vladimir
Putin than their own hopelessly corrupt leaders is suggestive. One can buy a whole range of
favorable t-shirts featuring Vladimir Putin on Ebay , also suggesting that most Americans find
the official Russophobia narrative both mysterious and faintly amusing. They may not really be
into the expressed desire of the huddled masses in D.C. to go to war to bring true U.S. style
democracy to the un-enlightened.
One also must wonder if the Democrats are reading the tea leaves correctly. If they think
that a slogan like "Honest Joe Biden will keep us safe from Moscow" will be a winner in 2020
they might again be missing the bigger picture. Since the focus on Trump's decidedly erratic
behavior will inevitably die down after the impeachment trial is completed, the Democrats will
have to come up with something compelling if they really want to win the presidency and it sure
won't be the largely fictionalized Russian threat.
Nevertheless, someone should tell Congressman Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence
Committee, to shut up as he is becoming an international embarrassment. His "closing arguments"
speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety minutes long and were
inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful," and "impressive." The
Washington Post 's resident Zionist extremist Jennifer Rubin
labeled it "a grand slam" while legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
called it "dazzling." Gail Collins of the New York Times dubbed it "a
great job" and added that Schiff is now "a rock star." Daily Beast enthused that
the remarks "will go down in history " and progressive activist Ryan Knight called it "a
closing statement for the ages." Hollywood was also on board with actress Debra Messing
tweeting "I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our country."
Actually, a better adjective would have been "scary" and not merely due to its elaboration
of the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Trump, much of which was
undeniably true even if not necessarily impeachable. It was scary because it was a warmongers speech, full of allusions to Russia, to Moscow's
"interference" in 2016, and to the
ridiculous proposition that if Trump were to be defeated in 2020 he might not concede and
Russia could even intervene militarily in the United States in support of its puppet.
Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020
election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided
at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for
going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was
essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment
inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there,
and we don't have to fight Russia here."
Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son
sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if
someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used
to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they
deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The
Nation added that "For all the talk about
Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering
w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of
Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke."
Over
at Antiwar Daniel Lazare explains how the Wednesday speech was "a fear-mongering,
sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia for no good reason, but
sends a chilling message to [Democratic Party] dissidents at home that if they deviate from
Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold."
The orthodoxy that Lazare was writing about includes the established Nancy Pelosi/Chuck
Schumer narrative that Russia invaded "poor innocent Ukraine" in 2014, that it interfered in
the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton, and that it is currently trying to smear Joe
Biden. One might add to that the growing consensus that Russia can and will interfere again in
2020 to help Trump. Absent from the narrative is the part how the U.S. intervened in Ukraine
first to remove its government and the fact that there is something very unsavory about Joe
Biden's son taking a high-paying sinecure board position from a notably corrupt Ukrainian
oligarch while his father was Vice President and allegedly directing U.S. assistance to a
Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.
On Wednesday,
Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become
the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century
will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the
legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The
Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not
stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will
do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and
"Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much
more credible.
The compulsion on the part of the Democrats to bring down Trump to avoid having to deal with
their own failings has brought about a shift in their established foreign policy, placing the
neocons and their friends back in charge. For Schiff, who has enthusiastically supported every
failed American military effort since 9/11, today's Russia is the Soviet Union reborn, and
don't you forget it pardner! Newsweek is meanwhile reporting that the U.S. military is reading
the tea leaves and
is gearing up to fight the Russians. Per Schiff, Trump must be stopped as he is part of a
grand Russian conspiracy to overthrow everything the United States stands for. If the Kremlin
is not stopped now, it's first major step, per Schiff, will be to "remake the map of Europe by
dint of military force."
Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering
nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of
that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is
essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point
of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence
Committee.
If the USA doesn't have a bogey man to be afraid of, the USA might worry more and to
insist on fixing the problems within the Nation.
So many of our politicians are guilty of allowing un constitutional on going act like the
removal of Due Process of law for some people and the on going bailout of Global Markets with
the US Dollar. The Patriot act and FISA Courts should have been gone.
Agreed. He seems as about as close as a leader can get to genuinely liking his country and
people. It seems the ones here only give a **** about carbon, Central and South Americans,
and cutting off my kids genitalia.
It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump,
or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal,
mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. When Trump
wins in a landslide in 2020, they will claim it's because the Russians 'fixed' the election,
and the Democratic party will break into pieces arguing about how they failed and what they
did wrong. See www.splittingpennies.com
Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant
portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the
blame they deserve themselves.
lots of words and no answer to the title question. Giraldi does not see the deep
ideological problems: Russia is not trying to diversify into a PoC country, they do not
worship gays and may be the only white people nation with sustaining birth rate. The US will
go to war there is no way to let this continue.
The smart ppl are doing a lousy job of informing the dumb ones about accepted policy like
"America Always Needs An Enemy". Smart ones understand that, and see the bigger game because
of it.
We fight the dumb ones who believe Russian boogeyman crap, instead of helping them
understand they are being misled on who the enemy really is. The dumb ones then fight back
and further entrench that brainwashing.
It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will
make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only
Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy.
The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country
Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian. How dare we
expect enforcement of the Laws on the books against them. They want to be deemed Royalty with
all the Elitist Rights.
The old rally call about Russia was always Communist Russia but, they don't do that
anymore? Why ? They love their Communist China wage slaves. The Centrist love Communist labor
in the name of profits . Human rights be damned it's all about the Global Elitist to them
now.
This article is war porn that assumes controlling oil fields is power. Instead
Russia is playing the White Knight saving nations from marauding hordes. NBC News is twisting
itself into tighter knots over Syria retaking Idlib Province back from the rebels. Turkey is
threatening to send in its Army.
Strategically a full-blown war between a NATO member Turkey and Russian ally Syria
would surpass the adverse effects of the quarantine of China or the rising temperatures that
are sliding huge glaciers off of Western Antarctica into the sea (if the war engulfs Europe).
The USA remains today in Syria and Iraq to control their oil fields since to Donald Trump it
means more money for the USA. Actually, America's position there is militarily untenable.
Both countries want the US gone. Iran's precision conventional ballistic missiles have
mutually assured destruction with Israel and Saudi Arabia and can destroy US bases there at
will.
When the Wuhan coronavirus engulfs the West, killing the elderly and the ill,
for-profit healthcare will be overwhelmed. With nothing to sell, the global economy stops
dead. There will be a glut of oil and natural gas. If they still have money, the trip to the
grocery store will be Russian Roulette for senior citizens hoping there will be food to live
for another month and not get viral pneumonia. The Doomsday Clock will be at midnight.
American troops will have to find their way home. The forever wars and neoliberalism died
with globalism.
This article sounds like the Russians have just started to go into Iraq but they
were there before the invasion nearly twenty years ago. In fact, in 2007 the US tried to get
the Iraqis to void a contract the Iraqis had with Russia for the massive West Qurna oil field
but that failed as the Iraqis would have been on the hook for all $13 billion in debt they
owed Russia and the US would not help. But there is a military aspect to being rich in
resources – there always is – and for Iraq it is particularly acute.
The Middle East is a rough neighbourhood and any country there has to be strong
enough to defend itself or else be vulnerable. After the invasion the Coalition tried to
organize Iraq so that they had no military but the Iraqi resistance put aid to that idea. But
what would make the Iraqis think hard was when ISIS was marching on Baghdad. The US refused
to use its air power to stop them and refused the Iraqis the use of pilots & paid-for
aircraft training in Texas until the government would fulfill a laundry list of demands. It
was the Russians – and the Iranians -that sent military equipment and specialists that
helped stop ISIS before they got to Baghdad.
More recently the Iraqis had to buy Russian tanks to fight ISIS as the American
tanks they had purchased were being deliberately not being serviced until the Iraqis
fulfilled an American demand. There is a shift now to buy Russian equipment because of
American fickleness with military gear. If that was not enough, the US has never gotten Iraqi
electricity production back to pre-war levles in spite of billions spent. To add insult to
injury, Trump demanded recently that Iraq hand over half of Iraqi oil production to repair
the electrical grid with of course no guarantees that they would ever do the work.
So the long and the short is that there is no trust with the US and Russia is seen
as a more reliable partner – as is China – and that there is no net benefit with
going to the US. And you never know if a second-term Trump might not seize the Iraqi oil
fields if he felt he could get away with it. It is a matter of being reliable-capable and it
seems that the Russians are proving themselves that, hence their success here. Reliability is
vital and cannot be replaced.
Russia has been using soft power in Middle East ever since Peter the Great started
fighting the Ottomans. Ever since the western powers (read: great Britain) always came to the
rescue of turks if Russia had military success, so they seriously used the other alternative:
economical, diplomatic and cultural influence in arab countries.
During the cold war they supported any regime in Middle East opposed to US-Israeli influence
(or downright aggression).
After the cold war the Russian foreign minister, later prime minister Primakov, was an
Arabist by training and personally knew almost every principal actor in Middle East. He is
presumed to be the architect of the current Russian policy (which is a continuation of the
old Soviet policy, which was based on the old Russian Empire policy).
It's a long, long history of using culture, diplomacy, economical help and weapon sales to
have influence in an area important to the Russian security in their southern
sphere.
The US pats itself on the back and always talks about being the worlds "policeman".
The American elite also want it both ways too- to bemoan having to do the police work in the
first place, while also endlessly stressing that the world would go to pieces if her armed
forces were not in foreign lands. Make up your mind please.
It would be very ironic if Russia proves to truly be an effective world "policeman"-
as seems more evidently to be the case.
Propaganda aside, who brings more stability and peace.
In one respect, the war profiteers are the least of the problem. If Space Force and
Nuclear rearmament are just more money boondoggles, while tragic, still survivable. If there
is a faction that actually believes in this stuff as a viable national policy for defense-
and offense- then when reality hits the road as the saying goes, the American psyche might
not survive the impact, let alone the rest of the world.
Americans are shielded from the horrors of war to the nations detriment.
You guys are NOT thinking venally nor strategically enough. The US powers that be,
love to put on this news story of foreign powers eating US cake. It's simply not credible
imho. Post Iraq war in 2003, "W" bush played the same "eating our cake" story out about China
taking Iraq oil for example. There are definitely other arrangements in place beneath the
surface we are never told. Iraq is now US piggbank. It can trade that asset as it desires,
sadly. Stories like this are just smoke.
I am struck by the size of the Russian investment ($20 billion) while the USA has
"invested" nearly 6 trillion (300x) as much in war expenditure in the region.
And this has the Russians bettering the USA in Iraq with their relatively small
strategic investment.
Maybe it is long overdue for the USA political class to reassess how it spends its
citizens' resources in the Middle East.
One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total
refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone
call. Not their phony quid pro quo.
All Democrat candidates need to questioned about Crowdstrike, since it led to two failed
major Democrat-led actions against President Trump - The Mueller investigation and the
Democrat impeachment.
Following article underscores what Larry Johnson has been reporting for years:
"... However, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed in his report that the dossier was used in the Obama administration's 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). As stated in the IG report, there were discussions by top intelligence officials as to whether the Steele dossier should be included in the ICA report. ..."
"... But upon careful inspection of Horowitz's report, on page 179, investigators ask former FBI Director James Comey if he discussed the dossier with Brennan and whether or not it should be given to President Obama. According to the report, Comey told investigators that Brennan said it was "important" enough to include in the ICA -- clearly part of the "corpus of intelligence information" they had. ..."
"... "Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result -- and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said." ..."
"... Brennan's assessment stated that Putin wanted to "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." It also stated that Putin "developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." ..."
"... Durham's investigation appear to have many tentacles. For example, he has expanded his probe to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. According to sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com he is carefully scrutinizing money paid through the office to former FBI confidential informant Cambridge academic Stefan Halper. Halper, who worked in previous U.S. administrations and is an academic, is connected to three of President Donald Trump's campaign officials that were wrapped up into the FBI's probe, most notably Carter Page. ..."
"... Halper, along with others such as former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove, founded the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, in England at Cambridge University. According to several sources, Durham has questioned officials at the Office of Net Assessment about Halper's contracts, how the money was utilized and what agency actually awarded the contract. ..."
"... Durham's criminal investigation into the FBI , CIA, as well as private entities is ongoing. Known by its acronym ONA, the secretive office is run by Director James Baker, who has been in the role since being appointed by the Obama Administration in 2015. In a January letter to Baker, Grassley asks a litany of questions as to Halper's role within ONA, his contracts, his foreign contacts and whether the FBI, or CIA, used the ONA office to pay Halper for spying on Trump campaign personnel. ..."
"... "Can ONA state for certain that Halper did not use taxpayer money provided by DoD to recruit, or attempt to recruit, sources for the FBI investigation into the now-debunked theory of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia," Grassley asks Baker. ..."
"... Ironically, documents obtained by SaraACarter.com suggest that during Halper's tenure with the seminar, he had also invited senior Russian intelligence officials to co-teach his course on several occasions. Further, according to news reports, he also accepted money to finance the course from a top Russian oligarch with ties to Putin. ..."
"... Several course syllabi from 2012 and 2015 obtained by this outlet reveal Hapler had invited and co-taught his course on intelligence with the former Director of Russian Intelligence Gen. I. Vyacheslav Trubnikov. ..."
"... However, there is evidence that Halper had similar sources to former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier. Based on hand written notes from an interview the State Department's Kathleen Kavalec states two of Steele's dossier sources; "Trubnikov" and "Surkov." ..."
U.S. Attorney John Durham – charged with the criminal probe into the FBI's Russia
investigation of the Trump campaign – has been questioning CIA officials closely involved
with John
Brennan's 2017 intelligence community assessment regarding direct Russian interference in
the 2016 election, according to U.S. officials.
In May 2017, Brennan denied during a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence that its agency relied on the now debunked Christopher Steele dossier for the
Intelligence Community Assessment report. He told then Congressman Trey Gowdy "we didn't"
use the Steele dossier.
"It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had," Brennan
stated.
"It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community assessment that was
done. It was -- it was not."
However, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed in his report that the dossier was
used in the Obama administration's 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). As stated in
the IG report, there were discussions by top intelligence officials as to whether the Steele
dossier should be included in the ICA report.
But upon careful inspection of Horowitz's report, on page 179, investigators ask former
FBI Director James Comey if he discussed the dossier with Brennan and whether or not it should
be given to President Obama. According to the report, Comey told investigators that Brennan
said it was "important" enough to include in the ICA -- clearly part of the "corpus of
intelligence information" they had.
According to a recent report by The New York Times, Durham's probe is specifically looking
at that January 2017 intelligence community assessment, which concluded with "high confidence" that
Russian President Vladimir Putin "ordered an influence campaign in 2016."
"Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director
John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular
result -- and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest
they interfere with that goal, the people said."
Sources with knowledge have said CIA officials questioned by Durham's investigative team
"are extremely concerned with the investigation and the direction it's heading."
Brennan's assessment stated that Putin wanted to "undermine public faith in the U.S.
democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency." It also stated that Putin "developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump."
But not everyone agreed with Brennan. The NSA then under retired Adm. Mike Rogers stated it
only had "moderate confidence" that Putin tried to help Trump's election. As stated in the
New York times Durham is investigating whether Brennan was keeping other intelligence
agencies out of the loop to keep his narrative that Putin was helping Trump's campaign
public.
"I wouldn't call it a discrepancy, I'd call it an honest difference of opinion between
three different organizations, and, in the end, I made that call," Rogers
told the Senate in May 2017.
"It didn't have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources."
According to The Times Durham is reviewing emails from the CIA, FBI, and National Security
Agency analysts who worked on the January, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russia's
interference in the election.
Durham's office could not be reached for comment. DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec also could
not be reached for comment.
However, Brennan told MSNBC's "Hardball" last week,
that Durham's questioning is dangerous.
"It's kind of silly," he said.
"Is there a criminal investigation now on analytic judgments and the activities of C.I.A.
in terms of trying to protect our national security? I'm certainly willing to talk to Mr.
Durham or anybody else who has any questions about what we did during this period of 2016
."
Durham And FBI Spy Stefan Halper
Durham's investigation appear to have many tentacles. For example, he has expanded his
probe to the Pentagon's
Office of Net Assessment. According to sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com he is carefully
scrutinizing money paid through the office to former FBI confidential informant Cambridge
academic Stefan Halper. Halper, who worked in previous U.S. administrations and is an academic,
is connected to three of President Donald Trump's campaign officials that were wrapped up into
the FBI's probe, most notably Carter
Page.
Halper, along with others such as former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove, founded the
Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, in England at Cambridge University. According to several
sources, Durham has questioned officials at the Office of Net Assessment about Halper's
contracts, how the money was utilized and what agency actually awarded the contract.
Further, Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is also
investigating the over $1 million in contracts Halper received from the ONA, as
first reported at SaraACarter.com. It is, of course, a separate investigation from Durham's
but on the same issues.
The Office Of Net Assessment, according to sources with knowledge, is sometimes used as a
front to pay contractors, like Halper, who are conducting work for U.S. intelligence agencies.
It is for this reason, that Durham is investigating the flow of money that Halper received and
whether or not agencies other than the FBI were involved in the investigation into Trump's
campaign and whether or not, the contracts were accurately accounted for in the reports
received by Grassley.
Durham's criminal investigation
into the FBI , CIA, as well as private entities is ongoing. Known by its acronym ONA, the
secretive office is run by Director James Baker, who has been in the role since being appointed
by the Obama Administration in 2015. In a January letter to Baker, Grassley asks a litany of
questions as to Halper's role within ONA, his contracts, his foreign contacts and whether the
FBI, or CIA, used the ONA office to pay Halper for spying on Trump campaign personnel.
"Can ONA state for certain that Halper did not use taxpayer money provided by DoD to
recruit, or attempt to recruit, sources for the FBI investigation into the now-debunked
theory of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia," Grassley asks Baker.
But it is Halper's role overseas and concern that the CIA may have been involved that is
leading to more questions than answers. In 2016, in what appeared to be an unexpected move,
Halper left the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. He
told papers in London – at the time – that it was due to "unacceptable Russian
influence."
Ironically, documents obtained by SaraACarter.com suggest that during Halper's tenure with the
seminar, he had also invited senior Russian intelligence officials to co-teach his course on
several occasions. Further, according to news reports, he also accepted money to finance the
course from a top Russian oligarch with ties to Putin.
Several course syllabi from 2012 and 2015 obtained by this outlet reveal Hapler had
invited and co-taught his course on intelligence with the former Director of Russian
Intelligence Gen. I. Vyacheslav Trubnikov.
Moreover, the New York Times recent report suggests that Durham's probe into Brennan is also
looking closely at an alleged secret source said to have direct ties to the Kremlin. It is not
certain if the same secret Kremlin source discussed by Brennan is the same source used by
Halper in his reports.
However, there is evidence that Halper had similar sources to former MI6 spy Christopher
Steele, who compiled the dossier. Based on hand written notes from an interview the State
Department's Kathleen Kavalec states two of Steele's dossier sources; "Trubnikov" and
"Surkov."
Interesting, isn't it.
Surkov is Vladislav Surkov, an aide of Vladimir Putin who is on the U.S.'s list of
sanctioned individuals, and Trubnikov is none other than Vyacheslav Trubnikov. Trubnikov was
the First Deputy of Foreign Minister of Russia and he formally served as the Director of
Foreign Intelligence Service. He is also a source of Halper.
It seems that history is about to repeat. The highwater mark in SEAsia was the helicopters
evacuating the last invaders from Saigon. The highwater mark in the ME is going to be similar
scenes in Iraq.
A final warning has been issued to US troops there – 40 days after Soleimanis
assassination – the Resistance is ready to move, an irresistible force about to meet a
not so immovable object.
Along with Idlib and Allepo its been amazing start to 2020. And its not even spring!
"... Imagine if we substitute the U.S. for Russia and the country "invaded" was Canada, rather than Ukraine, the government overthrown was in Ottawa and not Kiev, and the provinces embroiled in a foreign-backed civil war have been Nova Scotia and New Brunswick rather the provinces of Eastern Ukraine? This report, written in 2016, may make it easier to understand what has been really going on in Ukraine. Clicking on the links is key to understanding the real story. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Versions of this article first appeared on ..."
The impeachment hearings and trial of Donald Trump were filled with talk of Russian
aggression against Ukraine and threats to the United States. But what would it be like if we
switched the roles of Russia and the U.S.?
Imagine if we substitute the U.S. for Russia and the country "invaded" was Canada,
rather than Ukraine, the government overthrown was in Ottawa and not Kiev, and the provinces
embroiled in a foreign-backed civil war have been Nova Scotia and New Brunswick rather the
provinces of Eastern Ukraine? This report, written in 2016, may make it easier to understand
what has been really going on in Ukraine. Clicking on the links is key to understanding the
real story.
T he United States has "invaded" Canada to support the breakaway Maritime provinces that are
resisting a Moscow-engineered violent coup d'etat against the democratically elected
government in Ottawa.
The U.S. move is to protect separatists in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia after Washington
annexed Prince Edwards Island in a quickly arranged referendum .
The Islanders voted over 90 percent in favor of joining
the United States following the Russian-backed coup. Moscow has condemned the referendum as
illega l.
Hard-liners in the U.S. want
Washington to annex all three Maritime provinces, whose fighters are defying the coup in Ottawa
after Moscow installed an unelected prime minister.
Russian-backed Canadian federal troops have
launched so-called "anti-terrorist" operations in the breakaway region to crush the
rebellion, shelling residential areas and killing hundreds of civilians.
The violent coup.
The Canadian army are joined by Russian-supported neofascist battalions that played a crucial role in the
overthrow of the Canadian government. In Halifax, the extremists have burned alive at least 40
pro-U.S. civilians who had taken refugee in a trade union building.
Proof that Russia was behind the overthrow of the elected Canadian prime minister is
contained in a
leaked conversation between Georgiy Yevgenevich Borisenko, foreign ministry chief of
Moscow's North America department, and Alexander Darchiev, the Russian ambassador to
Canada.
According to a transcript of the leaked conversation,
Borisenko discussed who the new Canadian leaders should be six weeks before the coup took
place.
Russia moved to launch the coup when Canada decided
to take a loan package from the IMF that had fewer strings attached than a loan from
Russia.
Russia's Beijing ally was reluctant to back the coup. But this seemed of little concern to
Borisenko who is heard on the tape saying, "Fuck China."
Minister handing out cookies in the square.
Weeks before the coup Borisenko was filmed visiting protestors who had camped out in
Parliament Square in Ottawa demanding the ouster of the prime minister. Borisenko is seen
giving out cakes to
the demonstrators.
The foreign ministers of Russian-allied Belarus and Cuba also marched with the protestors
through the streets of Ottawa against the government. Russian media has portrayed the
unconstitutional change of government an act of "democracy." Russian senators have met in
public with extreme right-wing Canadian coup leaders,
praising their rebellion.
Borisenko said in a speech that Russia had spent $5 billion
over the past decade to "bring democracy" to Canada.
Senator meeting far-right coup leaders.
The money was spent on training "civil society." The use of non-governmental organizations
to overthrow foreign governments that stand in the way of Russia's economic and geo-strategic
interests is well documented, especially in a 1991 Washington Post column,
"Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups ."
The United States has thus moved to ban
Russian NGOs from operating in the country.
The coup took place as protestors violently clashed with police, breaking through barricades
and killing a number of officers. Snipers fired on the police and the crowd from a nearby
building in Parliament Square in which the Russian embassy had set up offices
just a few floors above, according to Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Son Gets Job After Coup
Russian lawmakers
compared President Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler for allegedly sending U.S. troops into the
breakaway provinces and for annexing Prince Edward Island in an act of "American aggression."
The Maritimes have had long ties to the U.S. dating back to the American Revolution.
Russia says it has intelligence proving that U.S. tanks have crossed the Maine border into
New Brunswick, but have failed to make the evidence public. They have revealed no satellite
imagery. Russian news media only reports American-backed rebels fighting in the Maritimes, not
American troops.
Washington denies it has invaded but says some American volunteers have entered the Canadian
province to join the fight.
Russia's puppet prime minister now in charge in Ottawa has only offered as proof six American passports of
U.S. soldiers found in New Brunswick.
Son gets job on energy company board after his father's government backs violent coup.
The Maritime Canadian rebels have secured anti-aircraft weapons enabling them to shoot down
a number of Royal Canadian Air Force transport planes.
A Malaysian airlines passenger jet was also shot down over Nova Scotia killing all on board.
Russia has accused President Obama of being behind the incident, charging that the U.S.
provided the anti-aircraft weapon.
Moscow has refused to release any intelligence to support its claim, other than
statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Canada's economy is near collapse and is dependent on infusions of Russian aid. This comes
despite a former Russian foreign ministry official being installed as
Canada's finance minister, only receiving Canadian citizenship on her first day on the job.
Despite installing a Russian to run Canada's economy, President Putin told the U.N. General
Assembly that Russia had
"few economic interests" in the country. But Russian agribusiness companies have already
taken stakes in Albertan wheat fields. And Ilya Medvedev, son of Russian Prime Minister
Dmitri Medvedev, as well as a Lavrov family friend
joined the board of Canada's largest oil company just weeks after the coup.
Russia's ultimate aim, beginning with the imposition of sanctions on the U.S., appears to be
a color revolution in Washington to overthrow Obama and install a Russian-friendly American
president.
This is clear from numerous statements by Russian officials and academics. A former Russian
national security advisor whom Putin consults on foreign policy said the United States should be
broken into three countries.
He has also
written that Canada is the stepping stone to the United States and that if the U.S. loses
Canada it will fail to control North America.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
mary floyd , February 15, 2020 at 13:20
The most important takeaway in this article for me was that the US should be broken into
three separate entities!
That would work well for most Americans. All in all, this is a great piece, Mr. Lauria!
Dao Gen , February 15, 2020 at 02:28
Joe, you are The Truth. The only thing you left out, no doubt for reasons of space and
time, was the immortal statement made by a leading member of the Russian Duma, who said
during a stirring and well-received speech that, “Canada is our crucial first line of
defense against the US. If Canada weren’t there to stop the Americans, we’d have
to fight them right here on our own doorstep.”
A very creative way of making the point. Still do not understand the depth of what often
appears to be heart felt hate for Russia by very powerful and smart people. Remember reading
a comment by Phil Girardi early in the Trump tour when he remarked at the depth of dislike of
Russia within the spook community. He wrote he was surprised and had, I think, been part of
that community.
Eddie S , February 15, 2020 at 14:51
RE: “…depth of dislike of Russia within the spook community”.
While I have no ‘special knowledge’ of the so-called ‘intelligence
community’, there’s a few reasons for this that come to-mind:
— Job preservation. The most obvious. The US wouldn’t need ~80% of those spooks
if there
weren’t big scary Russians/Chinese/Iranians/N.Koreans constantly plotting against
the
peaceful, benevolent US.
— Spooks believe in what is mainly a distractionary ploy by US oligarchs/plutocrats.
These
wealthy interests don’t want to lose some of their wealth to social reforms, so they
constantly
financially support scare-mongering, which some spooks unquestioningly accept.
— The profession tends to attract some of the more paranoid elements in our society,
so
they’re inclined that way by nature/personality.
robert e williamson jr , February 14, 2020 at 17:51
Well one thing for sure we would not be seeing a female anchor on CNN bemoaning the fact
the because of the coronavirus many popular kids toys might not be available here in the U.S.
for the up coming holidays (?).
Yes it did happen, hell I couldn’t make that up.
DARYL , February 14, 2020 at 15:45
…or better yet, substitute Central America for Ukraine, and Panama(canal) for
Crimea, then you have the makings of an even more salient parallel.
Realist , February 14, 2020 at 15:42
The difference is that under your scenario the world would be a smoking heap of
radioactive ashes already as the exceptional nation, unlike the ever cautious Russians, would
have immediately made bombastic threats and then launched military attacks to protect its
“security interests.” (Warring to “protect” security interests has
replaced invasion and occupation to save souls.) Things would have escalated from there to
its predestined thermonuclear climax, as they will in the real world if Uncle Sam
doesn’t get a grip on his uncontrolled aggression, demanding whatever he wants whenever
he wants it at the point of a gun. The world seems to be circling the drain whether or not
Washington is allowed to micromanage the affairs of Russia, China, Iran and every last duchy,
principality and people’s republic in addition to its own monumental mess it calls
domestic affairs. We’ve only got two political parties in this madhouse and they are
both equally bent on destroying civilisation if they can’t rule it all, which seems to
be the only point they agree on. Each party thinks it preferable to allow an obscenely rich
oligarch (what else should we call Trump or Bloomberg?) from the other side to rule rather
than a “communist” like Bernie Sanders or a “naive peacenik” like
Tulsi Gabbard to be elected president. If the space aliens land tomorrow and start recruiting
colonists to populate newly terraformed planets in other solar systems, sign me up. Yeah,
it’s become that absurd down here.
Simply imperial rot and corruption of power on all sides.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have an exclusive on those qualities.
Mark Thomason , February 14, 2020 at 12:37
This is a useful approach. It needs added to it the language and culture element: as if
the part that wants out of the Moscow coup shares our own language and culture, while the
rest of Canada does not, and the rest of Canada had gone on a spree to suppress that language
and culture. It is hard to find a parallel in Canada to those facts, but it is what happened
in Ukraine.
It is important to understanding to put oneself in the shoes of the other guys. It was
once called walking a mile in the other guy’s moccasins, and given a Native wisdom
attribution.
At the end of this essay, you may find a song which reasonably applies to Donald Trump
directed to Democrats.
How does one say Adam Schiff without laughing? It's hard to continue typing while
contemplating the Burbank Buffoon. Yet AS is making obscene flatus-like noises about
impeachment 2.0. He and Nervous Nancy will conspire with chief strategist Gerald Nadler about
extending the charges of 1.0 to 2.0.
Second verse
Same as the first
Obstructing leaking by firing leakers. That's one of the pending charges. Leutnant Oberst
Vindman will be help up as the innocent victim of political retaliation. As I understand the
military code of conduct, it says that the underling, Herr Oberst Vindman, went outside the
chain of command and released classified information. In the military this is called
insubordination, perhaps gross insubordination in view of the classified nature of the
information.
Another charge to be filed on behalf of former Ambassador Yovanovich, is that her God-given
Female rights were brutally violated as retaliation of advising Ukrainian officials to
disregard Commander Cheeto.
There is no telling what additional non-crimes may be thrown at the feet at El Trumpo. All
too horrible to contemplate--like someone throwing feces-contaminated dope needles onto Nervous
Nancy's front lawn in Pacific Heights.
If this Shampeachment 2.0 (S2) occurs before November's election, Democrats will become as
rare as dodo birds. If such proponents of S2 persist after the general election, they better
have secure transportation to an extradition-free country.
If it gets bad enough, considering the Clinton Mafia's body count, would it be unreasonable
to expect some untimely heart attacks and suicides with red scarves? On Clintonites? Soros et
al.?
When the first shot and you don't kill the king, flee. But the DNC is going to attempt shot
number 2. Trump WILL NEVER ALLOW A SECOND IMPEACHMENT TO OCCUR, no matter how patently
worthless? Will the most powerful narcissist in the world allow the DNC / coup perpetrators to
escaping Trumpian retribution?
Those doubting the Wrath of Q be prepared to be disabused of the impression that Q is pure
fantasy. Fantasy--like GPS targeting a single small sniper drone to shoot someone from 3000
feet.
Sorry folks. I live in a swamp. I've stepped in shit with my eyes open. Many of you have
too. Some of the excrement was of my own making.
Think about the singularly most effective and complex plot the world has ever seen, called
9/11. Think of the thousands of lives purposefully snuffed in then name of power and money.
Call yourselves serfs--that's a euphemism. You--including me-- are nothing but ants. Goddam
little ants that only Janes respect. There are no ascetic Janes in the penthouses of the
elites.
But I digressed to the mysterious existence of morality in politics as a whole. Today's
topic is more confined to the Democratic nomination.
Statement of Bias: Go Tulsi. Bravo Andy. The rest of you to the elsewhere--yeah, BS too.
The Dems are determined to grasp Defeat from the jaws of Defeat. Quite a trick. Like trying
to borrow money from the Judge during a Bankruptcy trial.
I talked today with a freshman college student majoring in political science about her
thought about the Shampeachment. She hadn't been paying attention. Not that I blame her. Her
college freshman friend watched C-Span; wasn't impressed. We political aficionados know all
about this political debauchery. If AS and NN attempt S2, expect many defections from the
supporting vote.
Democrat respect has dwindled in the Independent sector. This is not to say the Repugnants
are thereby more popular. They aren't. Trump is. Trump need that NH clown to challenge him in
the Repugnant primary to prove exactly how powerful he is. Anybody notice who were in the
audience, sitting nearby during Trump's post acquittal speech. Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham.
The lamb and the lion laying together. They are both on the Trump Train. Even Richard Burr
voted Trump in the impeachment. Mittens feared both his cojones would be excised if he voted
against Trump on both counts. What a chickenheart.
But where are the Dems? Why, they are Here. Yes. Yes. And they are There. Yes. Yes. And they
are Near. Yes. Yes. But....they are Far. Whither thou goest?
I refrain from pointed comments about AOC in further comments. The Squad is the iceberg
floating away from the glacier which spawned it. Unsuitable to warm weather produced by
political combat, the Squad faction will woke themselves up to dubious futures.
Establishment versus Bernie:
Not a contest. Spineless Bernie pretzelizes during first heated combat (which the Dem Debate
Debacles were not). Won't take a second punch--the first during night 3 of the '16 DNC
convention. Fist-shy now. Open Borders? WTF? Are you so nuts? If one offered a person the
choice personal safety in their own homes and streets and free medical care for all--including
the criminal aliens that A New Path Forward proposes--what do you think 85% of the public would
choose?
Pandering.
The Left is also pushing strenuous avoidance of discussing issues in a platitude-depleted
fashion. Yeah, Bernie's giving the same speech, with suitable modification, over 40 years.
Consistency is a good thing, yeh? How about persistently beating your head with a hammer (while
you still can)? Sounds like something Sun Tzu might not recommend.
Now, speaking of Las Vegas and the Nevada Primary. The culinary workers union will not
endorse Bernie due to well-deserved or ill-deserved claims that M4A will abolish hard won union
health benefits. And don't worry, the Shadow will be there, although Buttjiggle has now
disavowed any further connection, along with David Plouffe.
Keeping the Bern off the campaign trail is going to infuriate the Woke Generation / Antifa.
When--not if--the DNC cheats Bernie out of the nomination, if such proves necessary* will
literally result in blood on the streets along with broken windows and flaming tires. Associate
with that lot, eh? Given the choice of going into a biker bar, where brawls are always on the
menu, or a discreet wine bar, which would one rather choose? Sorry, those are your only
choices.
Nancy Pelosi, impressed by Arnold Schwarzenegger's former physical prowess, tears up her
copy of the state of the union address. How decorous. How courteous. How polite. Seen around
the world. Nigel Farage must be laughing his butt off, thinking about the shallow anti-Brexit
campaigns against his were compared to our Coup. Nigel won. Trump . is. winning. Getting tired
of winning yet?
I could go on for pages more of Dem stupidity, but why bother? Stupidity surrounds us.
Betting odds: DNC 1,999,999 to Bernie 1.
Place your bets.
For all the good it will do and I am sincere about this, I will vote Tulsi in the Dem
primary.
Here is the song Dems need to heed. This is Donald Trump telling' y'all I'M NOT YOUR MAN
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse
when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually
follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem
Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly
when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The
justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning
an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that
might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently
knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani
to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent
threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.
The incident that started the killing cycle
that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two
Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming
that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim
and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The
militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad,
which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers.
Iran retaliated when it fired missiles
at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly
shot down a passenger
jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the
Iraqi Parliament also
voted to expel
all American troops.
It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out
by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic
State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack
took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni
IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.
This new development was reported in the New York Times in
an article that was
headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised
doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it
generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet
another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.
Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's
bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that
was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.
There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the
regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three
separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active
in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small
arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might
be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.
The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times
reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including
claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with
the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the
reticence to confide in an ally.
If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless
actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking
for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted
in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times
that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is
willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by
a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it
Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian
nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's
USA who is saying so?
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind
of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]
The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.
Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official
to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.
Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media
as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.
As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in
Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence
. It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .
But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job
.
Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19
years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida
or to ISIS!!!
It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report (
kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo
lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo
tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained
by philosopher Karl Rove
To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11
attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically
next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.
It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there,
either.
Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding
America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.
And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.
contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some
psychological makeups
That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.
Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:
We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy
of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence
should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no
one recognizes to the SOTU.
USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much
run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19
is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military
"athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost
too coincidental.
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It
also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths.
Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat
Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which
have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability
and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.
The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill
Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The
Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in
October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way
of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.
Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed
to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful
Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in
organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.
How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea
and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about
Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel
staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.
ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel
It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled
by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would
they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception
in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to
divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as
the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which
has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.
ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels
in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their
command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.
And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant
stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their
oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant
out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel
is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going
to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design
years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace
by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now.
Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.
Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer
Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.
Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain
PEACE.
Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to
defend themselves.
The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus,
where it rises in the west.
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence
Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.
I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to
forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation"
that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.
As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work
to be done by the American military.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan
that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House
apparently knew about may even have approved.
It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad
Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to
bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.
One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and
despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.
It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their
agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.
That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting
the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli
version of the CIA, the Mossad.
"By way of deception thou shalt make war."
Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and
allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.
The pro-Trump TV news channel One America News Network has produced a 50 minute
documentary on Ukrainegate hoax. Half of it is however dedicated to the Maidan sniper
massacre of February 2014.
In the documentary, Caputo exposes the cover-up that led to the impeachment of President
Donald Trump and mass murder. The Democrats' crusade to kick our duly elected president out
of office didn't start with a phone call. It began with Ukrainian corruption, election
meddling and a bloody coup that cleared a path for Hunter Biden to get rich.
Tune in this weekend, Saturday and Sunday at 10PM EST / 7PM PST – only on One
America News!
The above page only contains a four minute introduction :
OAN's Jack Posobiec sat down with Michael Caputo to discuss his new special, "One America
News Investigates – The Ukraine Hoax: Impeachment, Biden Cash, Mass Murder."
I have not been able to find the original English language version online. I only found a
version dubbed in Russian via Colonel Cassad.
Note, that the video is age restricted by YouTube, meaning that you can only view it if
you have registered and logged into your Google account. Commenting on the video is disabled,
as is saving it to a playlist or downloading it through some easy to use online service.
The reason for this censorship cannot be "community guidelines". The FCC places far
stringent restrictions on what can be broadcast on television during prime time on Saturday
evenings.
Caroline Dorminey and Sumaya Malas do an excellent job of
making the case for extending New START:
One of the most critical arms control agreements, the New Strategic Reduction Arms Treaty
(New START), will disappear soon if leaders do not step up to save it. New START imposes
limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, Russia and the United States, and remains
one of the last arms control agreements still in effect. Those limits expire in exactly one
year from Wednesday, and without it, both stockpiles will be unconstrained for the first time
in decades.
Democrats in Congress already express consistent support for the extension of New START,
turning the issue into a Democratic Party agenda item. But today's hyper-partisan landscape
need not dictate that arms control must become solely a Democratic priority. Especially when
the treaty in question still works, provides an important limit on Russian nuclear weapons,
and ultimately increases our national security.
Dorminey and Malas are right that there should be broad support for extending the
treaty. The treaty's ratification was frequently described as a "no-brainer" win for U.S.
national security when it was being debated ten years ago, and the treaty's extension is
likewise obviously desirable for both countries. The trouble is that the Trump administration
doesn't judge this treaty or any other international agreement on the merits, and only a few of
the Republicans that voted to ratify the treaty are still in office. Trump and his advisers
have been following the lead of anti-arms control ideologues for years. That is why the
president seized on violations of the INF Treaty as an excuse to get rid of that treaty instead
of working to resolve the dispute with Russia, and that is why he expressed his willingness to
pull out of the Open Skies Treaty. Trump has encountered no resistance from the GOP as he goes
on a treaty-killing spree, because by and large the modern Republican Party couldn't care less
about arms control.
Like these hard-liners, Trump doesn't think there is such a thing as a "win-win" agreement
with another government, and for that he reason he won't support any treaty that imposes the
same restrictions on both parties. We can see that the administration isn't serious about
extending the treaty when we look at the far-fetched demands they insist on adding to the
existing treaty. These additional demands are meant to serve as a smokescreen so that the
administration can let the treaty die, and the administration is just stalling for time until
the expiration occurs. The Russian government has said many times that it is ready and willing
to accept an extension of the treaty without any conditions, and the U.S. response has been to
let them eat static.
It would be ideal if Trump suddenly changed his position on all this and just extended the
treaty, but all signs point in the opposite direction. What we need to start thinking about is
what the next administration is going to have to do to rebuild the arms control architecture
that this administration has demolished. There will be almost no time for the next president to
extend the treaty next year, so it needs to be a top priority. If New START lapses, the U.S.
and Russia would have to negotiate a new treaty to replace it, and in the current political
climate the odds that the Senate would ratify an arms control treaty (or any treaty) are not
good. It would be much easier and wiser to keep the current treaty alive, but we need to start
preparing for the consequences of Trump's unwillingness to do that.
The essential facts are these. In April 1898, the United States went to war with Spain. The war's nominal purpose was to liberate
Cuba from oppressive colonial rule. The war's subsequent conduct found the United States not only invading and occupying Cuba, but
also seizing Puerto Rico, completing a deferred annexation of Hawaii, scarfing up various other small properties in the Pacific,
and, not least of all, replacing Spain as colonial masters of the Philippine Archipelago, located across the Pacific.
That the true theme of the war with Spain turned out to be not liberation but expansion should not come as a terrible surprise.
From the very founding of the first British colonies in North America, expansion has constituted an enduring theme of the American
project. Separation from the British Empire after 1776 only reinforced the urge to grow. Yet prior to 1898, that project had been
a continental one. The events of that year signaled the transition from continental to extra-continental expansion. American leaders
were no longer content to preside over a republic stretching from sea to shining sea.
In that regard, the decision to annex the Philippines stands out as especially instructive. If you try hard enough -- and some
politicians at the time did -- you can talk yourself into believing that U.S. actions in the Caribbean in 1898 represented something
other than naked European-style imperialism with all its brute force to keep the natives in line. After all, the United States did
refrain from converting Cuba into a formal colony and by 1902 had even granted Cubans a sort of ersatz independence. Moreover, both
Cuba and Puerto Rico fell within "our backyard," as did various other Caribbean republics soon to undergo U.S. military occupation.
Geographically, all were located within the American orbit.
Yet the Philippines represented an altogether different case. By no stretch of the imagination did the archipelago fall within
"our backyard." Furthermore, the Filipinos had no desire to trade Spanish rule for American rule and violently resisted occupation
by U.S. forces. The notably dirty Philippine-American War that followed from 1899 to 1902 -- a conflict almost entirely expunged
from American memory today -- resulted in something like 200,000 Filipino deaths and ended in a U.S. victory not yet memorialized
on the National Mall in Washington.
So the Philippine Archipelago had become ours. In short order, however, authorities in Washington changed their mind about the
wisdom of accepting responsibility for several thousand islands located nearly 7,000 miles from San Francisco.
The sprawling American colony turned out to be the ultimate impulse purchase. And as with most impulse purchases, enthusiasm soon
enough gave way to second thoughts and even regret. By 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt was privately referring to the Philippines
as America's "Achilles heel." The United States had paid Spain $20 million for an acquisition that didn't turn a profit and couldn't
be defended given the limited capabilities of the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. To complicate matters further, from Tokyo's perspective,
the Philippines fell within its backyard. So far as Imperial Japan was concerned, imperial America was intruding on its turf.
Thus was the sequence of events leading to the Pacific War of 1941-1945 set in motion. I am not suggesting that Pearl Harbor was
an inevitable consequence of the United States annexing the Philippines. I am suggesting that it put two rival imperial powers on
a collision course.
One can, of course, find in the ensuing sequence of events matters worth celebrating -- great military victories at places like
Midway, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, culminating after 1945 in a period of American dominion. But the legacy of our flirtation with empire
in the Western Pacific also includes much that is lamentable -- the wars in Korea and Vietnam, for example, and now an intensifying
rivalry with China destined to lead we know not where.
If history could be reduced to a balance sheet, the U.S. purchase of the Philippines would rate as a pretty bad bargain. That
first $20 million turned out to be only a down payment.
No. Absolutely not. We would have been much better off had the US not violently dismantled the first Republic of the Philippines.
The canard that our greatest generation of Filipinos (Generation of 1898) was not fit to govern us was a product of US Assimilation
Schools designed to rid the Philippines of Filipinos- by wiring them to automatically think anything non-Filipino will always
be better (intenalized racism) and to train the primarily to leave and work abroad and blend -in as Americans (objectification)
and never stand out as self-respecting Filipinos who aspire to be the best they can be propelled by the Filipino story.
Our multiple Golden Ages only occurred prior to US invasion and colonization.
YES, the USA owes us. We are every American's 2nd original sin.
We do not owe US anything. The USA owes us a great big deal, More than any other country on earth.
THEY (USA) owes us:
1) For violently dismantling the first Republic of the Philippines at the cost of over a million martyrs from the greatest generation
of Filipinos.
2) For US Assimilation Schools denying us the intensity of our golden ages prior to their invasion as our drivers for PH civilization,
turning us into a country that trains its people to leave and assimilate in US culture and become workers for Americans and foreigners
abroad. This results in a Philippines WITHOUT Filipinos.
3) For US bombs turning Intramuros into dust- the centerpiece of the Paris of the East, with treasures, publications and art
much older that the US- without consent from any Filipino leader. And for dismantling our train system from La Union to Bicol.
4) For the US Rescission Act which denied Filipino veterans due recognition, dignity and honor- vets who fought THEIR war against
Japan on our soil.
5) For the canard that Aguinaldo, our 29-year old father and liberator of the Republic of the Philippines, is a villain and
a traitor, even inventing the heroism of Andres Bonifacio which ultimately resulted in "Toxic Nationalism" which Rizal warned
us about in the persona of Simoun in El Filibusterismo who will drive our nation to self-destruction and turn a paradise into
a desert by being automatically wired to think anything non-Filipino will and always be better.
The core of colonial mentality is the misguided belief that we cannot have been a greater country had the US not destroyed
the first Republic of the Philippines- a lie that was embedded in our minds by the US discrediting Aguinaldo and the Generation
of 1896/1898- the greatest generation of Filipinos.
It does seem to me that every country which was able and could afford to expand its territory did so. In Europe, exceptions to
that a wish were Switzerland, Slovakia, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, Ukraine, ?Romania and Chechia.
So, US had company!
President William McKinley defends his decision to support the annexation of the Philippines in the wake of the U.S. war in that
country:
"When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them. . . And
one night late it came to me this way. . .1) That we could not give them back to Spain- that would be cowardly and dishonorable;
2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany-our commercial rivals in the Orient-that would be bad business and discreditable;
3) that we not leave them to themselves-they are unfit for self-government-and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there
worse than Spain's wars; and 4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and
uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ
also died."
Making Christians of a country that had its first Catholic diocese 9 years before the Spanish Armada sailed for England, with
4 dioceses in place years before the English sailed for Jamestown.
Dan Carlin did an outstanding podcast on the choices America faced after acquiring the Philippines. McKinley was anti-empire,
but the industrialists in his administration hungered to thwart the British, French and Dutch empires in the Pacific by establishing
a colony all of our own.
As someone born in Latin America, we never saw the US as anything but a brutal predator, whose honeyed words were belied by their
deeds. I wonder if it began with the Philippines. There was the Mexican war first, which wrested a lot of territory from Mexico.
And then there was the invasion of Canada to bring the blessings of democracy to Canadians (it ended with the White House in flames).
I suspect that the beliefe that you are exceptional and blessed by God can lead to want to straighten up other people "for their
own good", and make a profit besides - a LOT of profit.
Bush older was the first president from CIA. He was already a senior CIA official at the time
of JFK assassination and might participate in the plot to kill JFK. At least he was in Dallas at
the day of assassination. .
That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion
of 2003.
Nothing to do with 9 years of sanctions on Iraq that killed a million Iraqis, "half of
them children," and US control of Iraqi air space, after having killed Iraqi military in a
turkey-shoot, for no really good reason other than George H W Bush seized the "unipolar
moment" to become king of the world?
Maybe it's just stubbornness: I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot,"
in the Persian Gulf war aka Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17,
1991.
According to Jeffrey Engel, Bush's biographer and director of the Bush library at Southern
Methodist University, Gorbachev harassed Bush with phone calls, pleading with him not to go
to war over Kuwait
(It's worth noting that Dennis Ross was relatively new in his role on Jim Baker's staff
when Baker, Brent Skowcroft, Larry Eagleburger & like minded urged Bush to take the
Imperial Pivot.)
According to Vernon Loeb, who completed the writing of King's Counsel after Jack
O'Connell died, Jordan's King Hussein, in consultation with retired CIA station chief
O'Connell, parlayed with Arab leaders to resolve the conflict on their own, i.e. Arab-to-Arab
terms, and also pleaded with Bush to stay out, and to let the Arabs solve their own problems.
Bush refused. https://www.c-span.org/video/?301361-6/kings-counsel
See above: Bush was determined to "seize the unipolar moment."
Once again insist on entering into the record: George H Bush was present at the creation
of the Global War on Terror, July 4, 1979, the Jerusalem Conference hosted by Benzion and
Benjamin Netanyahu and heavily populated with Trotskyites – neocons.
I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot," in the Persian Gulf war aka
Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17, 1991.
Yes I remember it well. I came back from a long trip & memorable vacation, alas I was
a young man, to the television drama that was unfolding with Arthur Kent 'The Scud
Stud' and others reporting from the safety of their hotel balconies filming aircaft and
cruise missiles. It was surreal.
You are correct of course.
"... By April 2018, Gates had reached a plea deal to testify against Manafort in a criminal case that ultimately resulted in Manafort's conviction on tax and illegal lobbying charges. As the day-to-day manager of Manafort's political consulting and lobbying efforts for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Gates handled Manafort's operations and was deeply familiar with when and how payments were made and from whom. ..."
"... Furthermore, Gates revealed that Manafort's team had confirmed with the party's former accountant that the black ledger could not be a contemporaneous document because the party's official accounting books burned in a 2014 fire during Ukraine's Maidan uprising. ..."
"... The Party of Regions accountant reached by Manafort's team told them that the black ledger was a "copy of a document that did not exist" and it "was not even [the accountant's own] handwriting," Gates told the prosecutors. ..."
One of Robert Mueller's pivotal trial witnesses told the special prosecutor's team in spring
2018 that a key piece of Russia collusion evidence found in Ukraine known as the "black ledger"
was fabricated, according to interviews and testimony.
The ledger document, which suddenly appeared in Kiev during the 2016 U.S. election, showed
alleged cash payments from Russian-backed politicians in Ukraine to ex-Trump campaign chairman
Paul Manafort.
"The ledger was completely made up," cooperating witness and Manafort business partner Rick
Gates told prosecutors and FBI agents, according to a written summary of an April 2018 special
counsel's interview.
In a brief interview with Just the News, Gates confirmed the information in the summary.
"The black ledger was a fabrication," Gates said.
"It was never real, and this fact has since been proven true."
Gates' account is backed by several Ukrainian officials who stated in interviews dating to
2018 that the ledger was of suspicious origins and could not be corroborated.
If true, Gates' account means the two key pieces of documentary evidence used by the media
and FBI to drive the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative -- the Steele dossier and the
black ledger -- were at best uncorroborated and at worst disinformation. His account also
raises the possibility that someone fabricated the document in Ukraine in an effort to restart
investigative efforts on Manafort's consulting work or to meddle in the U.S. presidential
election.
Much mystery has surrounded the black ledger, which was publicized by the New York Times and
other U.S. news outlets in the summer of 2016 and forced Manafort out as one of Trump's top
campaign officials.
After gaining wide attention as purported evidence of Russian ties to the Trump campaign,
the ledger was never introduced as evidence at Manafort's 2018 trial or significantly analyzed
in Mueller's final 2019 report, which concluded that Trump did not collude with Russia to
influence the 2016 election. No FBI 302 interview reports have been released either showing
what the FBI concluded about the ledger.
Gates' interview with the Mueller team now provides a potential clue as to why.
By April 2018, Gates had reached a plea deal to testify against Manafort in a criminal case
that ultimately resulted in Manafort's conviction on tax and illegal lobbying charges. As the
day-to-day manager of Manafort's political consulting and lobbying efforts for former Ukrainian
President Viktor Yanukovych, Gates handled Manafort's operations and was deeply familiar with
when and how payments were made and from whom.
During a debriefing with Mueller's team on April 10, 2018, Gates was asked about the August
2016 New York Times article that first alerted the public to the existence of the black ledger
and eventually led to Manafort's downfall.
"The article was completely false," Gates is quoted as telling Mueller's team in a written
summary of the interview created by some of the attendees.
"As you now know there were no cash payments. The payments were wired. The ledger was
completely made up."
When pressed as to why he was so certain, Gates explained the ledger did not match the way
Yanukovych's Party of Regions made payments to consultants like Manafort.
"It was not how the PoR [Party of Regions] did their record keeping," Gates told the
prosecution team, according to the written summary.
Furthermore, Gates revealed that Manafort's team had confirmed with the party's former
accountant that the black ledger could not be a contemporaneous document because the party's
official accounting books burned in a 2014 fire during Ukraine's Maidan uprising.
"All the real records were burned when the party headquarters was set on fire when
Yanukovych fled the country," Gates told the investigators, according to the interview
summary.
The Party of Regions accountant reached by Manafort's team told them that the black ledger
was a "copy of a document that did not exist" and it "was not even [the accountant's own]
handwriting," Gates told the prosecutors.
Gates' account to prosecutors closely matches what several Ukrainian officials have said for
more than a year.
Ukraine's Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytskyy told me last spring that he
believed the black ledger was not a contemporaneous document, and likely manufactured after the
fact.
"It was not to be considered a document of Manafort," Kholodnytskyy said in an
interview.
"It was not authenticated. And at that time it should not be used in any way to bring
accusations against anybody."
Likewise, one of Gates' and Manafort's Ukrainian business partners, Konstantin Kilimnik, who
is now indicted in the same case as Manafort but remain at large, wrote a senior U.S. State
Department official in summer 2016 that the black ledger did not match actual payments made to
Manafort's firm.
"I have some questions about this black cash stuff because those published records do not
make sense," Kilimnik wrote the State official in August 2016.
"The time frame doesn't match anything related to payments made to Manafort. It does not
match my records. All fees Manafort got were wires, not cash."
In December 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that two of that country's government officials --
member of parliament Sergey Leschenko and Artem Sytnyk, the head of the National Anticorruption
Bureau of Ukraine -- illegally interfered in the 2016 U.S. election by publicizing the black
ledger evidence.
While that ruling has been overturned on a technicality, the role of Sytnyk and Leschenko in
pushing the black ledger story remains true.
In an interview last summer, Leschenko said he first received part of the black ledger when
it was sent to him anonymously in February 2016, but it made no mention of Manafort. Months
later, in August 2016, more of the ledger became public, including the alleged Manafort
payments.
Leschenko said he decided to publicize the information after confirming a few of the
transactions likely occurred or matched known payments.
But Leschenko told me he never believed the black ledger could be used as court evidence
because it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was authentic, given its
mysterious appearance during the 2016 election.
"The black ledger is an unofficial document," Leschenko told me. "And the black ledger was
not used as official evidence in criminal investigations because you know in criminal
investigations all proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. And the black ledger is not a
sample of such proof because we don't know the nature of such document ."
In the end, the black ledger did prompt the discovery of real financial transactions and
real crimes by Manafort, which ultimately led to his conviction.
But its uncertain origins raise troubling questions about election meddling and what
constitutes real evidence worthy of starting an American investigation.
"... Like most lefty journalists, I assumed that George Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq to buy up its oil fields, cheap and at gun-point, and cart off the oil. We thought we knew the neo-cons true casus belli ..."
"... But the truth in the Options for Iraqi Oil Industry was worse than "Blood for Oil". Much, much worse. The key was in the flow chart on page 15, Iraq Oil Regime Timeline & Scenario Analysis: "...A single state-owned company ...enhances a government's relationship with OPEC." ..."
Because it was marked "confidential" on each page, the oil industry stooge couldn't believe
the US State Department had given me a complete copy of their secret plans for the oil fields
of Iraq.
Actually, the State Department had done no such thing. But my line of bullshit had been so
well-practiced and the set-up on my mark had so thoroughly established my fake identity, that I
almost began to believe my own lies.
I closed in. I said I wanted to make sure she and I were working from the same State
Department draft. Could she tell me the official name, date and number of pages? She did.
Bingo! I'd just beaten the Military-Petroleum Complex in a lying contest, so I had a right
to be chuffed.
After phoning numbers from California to Kazakhstan to trick my mark, my next calls were to
the State Department and Pentagon. Now that I had the specs on the scheme for Iraq's oil --
that State and Defense Department swore, in writing, did not exist -- I told them I'd
appreciate their handing over a copy (no expurgations, please) or there would be a very
embarrassing story on BBC Newsnight .
Within days, our chief of investigations, Ms Badpenny, delivered to my shack in the woods
outside New York a 323-page, three-volume programme for Iraq's oil crafted by George Bush's
State Department and petroleum insiders meeting secretly in Houston, Texas.
I cracked open the pile of paper -- and I was blown away.
Like most lefty journalists, I assumed that George Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq to
buy up its oil fields, cheap and at gun-point, and cart off the oil. We thought we knew the
neo-cons true casus belli : Blood for oil.
But the truth in the Options for Iraqi Oil Industry was worse than "Blood for Oil".
Much, much worse. The key was in the flow chart on page 15, Iraq Oil Regime Timeline &
Scenario Analysis: "...A single state-owned company ...enhances a government's relationship
with OPEC."
It's Time To Ask Again What Really Happened To Ukraine's Missing Gold by Tyler Durden Sat, 02/08/2020 - 19:00 0
SHARES Now that the Trump impeachment farce is finally over, vindicating the president and in
the process for the first time boosting the president's approval rating higher than where Obama
was at this time in his first term much to the embarrassment of Nancy Pelosi, whose impeachment
gambit has backfired spectacularly (just as Nancy knew it would, and is why she delayed
triggering it until a critical mass of ultra left-wing demands in Congress made it impossible
for her to ignore any longer)...
... the Democrats' great diversion from Trump's core question - did the Bidens willfully
engage in, and benefit from corruption in the Ukraine, corruption which may have been enabled
and facilitated by billions in taxpayer funds originating from the Obama administration no less
- is over.
However, while Trump has finally moved on beyond what in retrospect was a remarkable, if
failed presidential coup attempt, orchestrated by the Ukraine lobby in the US, backed by the
Atlantic Council and various other "deep-state" institutions and apparatchiks, and implemented
by Congressional democrats who are now watching the chances of the Democratic party winning the
2020 presidential election melt before their eyes, some long overdue questions surrounding the
Bidens' involvement in Ukraine - one of the world's most corrupt nations
according to the World Economic Forum - especially around the time of the 2014 presidential
coup and the months immediately following, are about to be asked , and haunt Joe Biden and his
son like a very angry and vengeful ghost, only this time there will be no Trump impeachment to
distract from revealing the shocking answers.
Needless to say, we are delighted by this outcome because as regular readers will recall,
there are many unanswered questions that emerged back in 2014, some from following the money
both in and out of Ukraine, and some from following the country's gold, much of which was put
on board a plane headed to the US in one cold, wintry night in March 2014, never to come back
again.
But before we get there, first we need to a rather lengthy detour into the history of
Ukraine corruption since the February 2014 Euromadian revolution, for the background on why
Trump had to be stopped at all costs from asking either Ukraine, or anyone else, questions that
may expose corruption involving Joe Biden in particular, and the Obama administration in
general. To do that, we need to follow some $1.8 billion in US taxpayer funds that quietly went
missing back in 2014, and most likely ended up in the offshore bank account of some Ukrainian
oligarch; conveniently PJ Media's senior editor Tyler O'Neill did just that almost two years
ago,
in March 2018 . Here's what he
said back then , together with some additions from ZH:
In the last days of the Obama administration, then-Vice President Joe Biden took a "swan
song" trip to Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt country where he had been the administration's
"point person." On the eve of this trip, the country announced it would end a criminal
investigation into an infamous company connected to the loss of $1.8 billion in aid funding --
a company whose board of directors included Biden's son Hunter.
The Biden family's dealings with this Ukrainian company involved getting one of the
country's most notorious mob bankers, Ihor Kolomoiski, off the U.S. government visa ban list.
Under Biden's leadership, $3 billion in aid went to Ukraine, and his son's company was
implicated in the disappearance of $1.8 billion of that money. Peter Schweizer revealed the
former vice president's role in his new book " Secret
Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends
."
Secretary of State John Kerry announced the U.S. support for Ukraine's nationalist
government in March 2014, a month after a mass uprising pushed pro-Russian President Viktor
Yanukovych out of office and inspired a corresponding pro-Russian uprising in the east. It was
also at this time that a
leaked recording between US assistant secretary of state Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland and
the US envoy to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, emerged, a clip which as the
FT said then " could also bolster [claims] that the protests that erupted against Ukraine's
President Viktor Yanukovich last November are being funded and orchestrated by the US ." In
other words, the clip confirmed that the US was masterminding the entire "Euromaidan" process
all along and deciding who should be in Ukraine's next government. In short: what happened in
Ukraine in February 2014 was another CIA-staged presidential coup. Finally, it was also the
time that Biden became the Obama administration's "point person" for the country.
On April 16, 2014, shortly after the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution which culminated
with the overthrow of democratically-elected president Yanukovich, Biden met with Devon Archer,
a former star fundraiser for John Kerry's 2004 presidential run and
business partner in Rosemont Capital with Biden's son Hunter . (Federal agents would later
arrest Archer in May 2016 for defrauding a Native American tribe.)
Less than a week later (April 22) came an announcement that Archer had joined the board of
Burisma, a secretive Ukrainian natural gas company. On May 13, Hunter Biden would also join the
company's board.
On the day before Archer's hiring, April 21, the vice president landed in Kiev for
high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials. He spearheaded the effort to invest $1 billion
from the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) into Ukraine .
The vice president's presence helps explain a conundrum. Burisma hired his son and Archer
despite the fact that neither of them had any experience in the energy sector. Schweizer notes,
"The choice of Hunter Biden to handle transparency and corporate governance of Burisma is
curious, because Biden had little if any experience in Ukrainian law, or professional legal
counsel, period."
Furthermore, Hunter Biden "seemed undeterred by the fact that as he was joining the Burisma
board the British government's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was seizing $23 million from [founder
Mykola] Zlochevsky's bank accounts." Furthermore, a year after Biden joined the firm,
"experienced industry observers warned investors that Burisma was still a company to be
avoided."
On the other hand, Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Out of 148
nations studied by the World Economic Forum , Ukraine ranks
143 for property rights, 130 for "irregular payments and bribes," 133 for "favoritism in
decisions of government officials," and 146 for "protection of minority shareholders'
interests."
Two major figures in this corruption feature prominently in Biden's Ukraine investment.
Zlochevsky founded Burisma in Cyprus in 2006. He served as natural resources minister under
Yanukovych, and gave himself the licenses to develop the country's abundant gas fields. He also
had a flare for lavishness, running a super-exclusive fashion boutique named after himself.
Burisma's major subsidiaries ended up sharing the same business address as the natural gas
firm controlled by Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. He controlled the country's largest
financial institution, PrivatBank, through which the Ukrainian military and government workers
got paid. He also owned media companies and airlines. In violation of Ukraine law, he
maintained Ukrainian, Israeli, and Cypriot passports.
Kolomoisky gained a reputation for violence and brutality, along with lawlessness. Rival
oligarchs have sued him for alleged involvement in "murders and beheadings" related to a
business deal. He also allegedly used "hired rowdies armed with baseball bats, iron bars, gas
and rubber bullet pistols and chainsaws" to take over a steel plant in 2006. He built his
multibillion-dollar empire by "raiding" other companies, forcing them to merge with his own
using brute force.
For these and other reasons, the U.S. government placed Kolomoisky on its visa ban list,
prohibiting him from entering the country legally. In 2015, however, after Hunter Biden and
Devon Archer had joined Burisma's board, Kolomoisky was given admittance back into the U.S.
According to a follow-up report in 2016, "today, the oligarch mainly resides in Switzerland. He
spends much time in the United States and is getting less and less involved in the Ukrainian
affairs."
Archer and the younger Biden brought other benefits to Burisma, however. Archer represented
the company at the Louisiana Gulf Coast Oil Exposition in 2015. Biden addressed the Energy
Security for the Future conference in Monaco. The vice president's son brought much-needed
legitimacy to the shoddy gas company . Less than a month after Archer joined Burisma's board,
the company hired another Kerry lackey, David Leiter, as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He
successfully lobbied for more aid to the country.
And Both Biden and Kerry championed $1.8 billion in taxpayer-backed loans given to Ukraine
in September 2014 courtesy of the IMF. That money would go directly through Kolomoisky's
PrivatBank, and then it
would disappear . According to the Ukrainian anti-corruption watchdog Nashi Groshi, "This
transaction of $1.8 billion ... with the help of fake contracts was simply an asset siphoning
operation."
What is even more fascinating, is that in the chaos following the February 2014 revolution,
Ukraine appears to have embezzled money from none other than the IMF (whose biggest source of
funds is the US). As German newspaper Deutsche Wirtshafts Nachrichten reported in
August 2015 , a huge chunk of the $17 billion in bailout money the IMF granted to Ukraine
in April 2014 was discovered in a bank account in Cyprus controlled by, who else, Ukrainian
oligarch Kolomoisky . As the German publication went on to add, in April 2014, $3.2 billion was
immediately disbursed to Ukraine, and over the following five months, another $4.5 billion was
disbursed to the Ukrainian Central Bank in order to stabilize the country's financial system. "
The money should have been used to stabilize the country's ailing banks, but $1.8 billion
disappeared down murky channels, "
DWN wrote .
DWN also reported that according to the IMF, in January 2015 the equity ratio of Ukraine's
banking system had dropped to 13.8 percent, from 15.9 percent in late June 2014. By February
2015 even PrivatBank had to be saved from bankruptcy, and was given a 62 million Euro two-year
loan from the Central Bank. "So where have the IMF's billions gone?"
The racket executed by Kolomoiski's PrivatBank was first uncovered by the Ukrainian
anti-corruption initiative 'Nashi Groshi,' meaning 'our money' in Ukrainian.
According to Nashi Groshi's investigations, PrivatBank has connections to 42 Ukrainian
companies, which are owned by another 54 offshore companies based in the Caribbean, USA and
Cyprus. These companies took out loans from PrivatBank totaling $1.8 billion.
These Ukrainian companies ordered investment products from six foreign suppliers based in
the UK, the Virgin Islands and the Caribbean, and then transferred money to a branch of
PrivatBank in Cyprus, ostensibly to pay for the products.The products were then used as
collateral for the loans taken out from PrivatBank – however, the overseas suppliers
never delivered the goods, and the 42 companies took legal action in court in Dnipropetrovsk,
demanding reimbursement for payments made for the goods, and the termination of the loans from
Privatbank. The court's ruling was the same for all 42 companies; the foreign suppliers should
return the money, but the credit agreement with Privatbank remains in place.
"Basically, this was a transaction of $1.8 billion abroad, with the help of fake contracts,
the siphoning off of assets and violation of existing laws, "
explained journalist Lesya Ivanovna of Nashi Groshi.
Then in March 2015, Kolomoiski, whom some have described as the Tony Soprano of Ukraine, and
increasingly a pariah in the country that made him a billionaire was dismissed from his
position as governor of Dnipropetrovsk after a power struggle with Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko; the fraud was carried out while he was governor of the region in East-Central
Ukraine.
"The whole story with the court case was only necessary to make it look like the bank itself
was not involved in the fraud scheme. Officially it now looks like as if the bank has the
products, but in reality they were never delivered," said Ivanovna.
Such business practices, which earned Kolomoskyi a fortune estimated by
Forbes in March 2012 to be $3 billion , were known to investigators beyond Ukraine's
borders; Kolomoiski was once banned from entering the US due to suspicions of connections with
international organized crime but then Biden's involvement quietly lifted the visa ban.
Despite these suspicions, Kolomoiski is unlikely to face justice, as he is currently living
in exile in Switzerland , Israel and the US, after he fled Ukraine in early 2015. Not long
after Kolomoiski fled Ukraine, in December 2016, Ukraine's government
nationalize his Privatbank in order to shore up Ukrainians' savings. A Ukrainian lawmaker
called it the " greatest robbery of Ukraine's state budget of the millennium." A few months
earlier, in February 2016, the government seized Burisma founder Zlochevsky's assets and placed
him on Ukraine's wanted list. The Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office seized Burisma's gas
wells.
Which brings us to January 2017, and when Joe Biden infamous arrived for his "swan song"
visit and demanded, before the entire world, that the criminal investigation into Burisma was
dropped.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UXA--dj2-CY
Devon Archer left the scandal-plagued company at the end of 2016, although a clueless Hunter
Biden remained on the board through October 2019 - well after his presence there sparked the
biggest political scandal since the Bill Clinton impeachment - providing "legal assistance" in
exchange for millions of dollars received from the gas giant. Archer and Biden have not been
required to disclose their compensation from Burisma, but
Bowling Green State University professor Oliver Boyd-Barrett wrote , "Potentially, the
Biden family could become billionaires."
So did Joe Biden get Burisma off the hook for $1.8 billion in lost aid funding? Did he or
his son get Kolomoisky off the visa ban list? To be sure, many questions still remain and were
all conveniently swept under the rug over the "faux outrage" over the Trump impeachment farce.
But now that the great impeachment diversion is over, these all too pressing questions can and
finally should be asked.
Incidentally, anyone who is confused by the narrative above, and how $1.8 billion in
taxpayer dollars "disappeared" in Ukraine starting in September 2014 when the money was
deposited in PrivatBank, is encouraged to watch the following video by Glenn Beck who does a
surprisingly good job at connecting the confusing dots behind what may be one of the greatest
sovereign corruption and money heist stories in history.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/dCSwqca8KXU
The good news is that there are so many loose threads in this narrative, that any real probe
will have little difficulty in getting to the bottom of where and how the $1.8 billion in US
taxpayer funding to Ukraine "disappeared" and whether Biden, both father and son, are indeed
involved.
And just to help them out, one place where any serious probe can start is with a story we
wrote in March 2014, when citing a
local media report , we shone light on a mysterious operation in which a substantial
portion of Ukraine's gold reserves were loaded onboard an unmarked plane, and flown to the US,
just weeks after the February 2014 revolution.
From the source , March 7, 2014:
Tonight, around at 2:00 am, an unregistered transport plane took off took off from
Boryspil airport.
According to Boryspil staff, prior to the plane's appearance, four trucks and two cargo
minibuses arrived at the airport all with their license plates missing. Fifteen people in
black uniforms, masks and body armor stepped out, some armed with machine guns. These people
loaded the plane with more than forty heavy boxes.
After this, several mysterious men arrived and also entered the plane. The loading was
carried out in a hurry. After unloading, the plateless cars immediately left the runway, and
the plane took off on an emergency basis.
Airport officials who saw this mysterious "special operation" immediately notified the
administration of the airport, which however strongly advised them "not to meddle in other
people's business."
Later, the editors were called by one of the senior officials of the former Ministry of
Income and Fees, who reported that, according to him, tonight on the orders of one of the
"new leaders" of Ukraine, all the gold reserves of the Ukraine were taken to the United
States.
Needless to say there was no official confirmation of any of this taking place, and in fact
our report, in which we mused if the "price of Ukraine's liberation" was the handover of
Ukraine's gold to the Fed at a time when Germany was actively seeking to repatriate its own
physical gold located at the bedrock of the NY Fed, led to the usual mainstream media
mockery.
But then everything changed in November
2014 , when in an interview on Ukraine TV, none other than the then-head of the Ukraine
Central Bank, Valeriya Gontareva (who, became head of the Ukraine central bank in June 2014
when she replaced Stepan
Kubiv and also presided over the nationalization of Kolomoiski's PrivateBank in December 2016 ), made the
stunning admission that "in the vaults of the central bank there is almost no gold left. There
is a small amount of gold bullion left, but it's just 1% of reserves."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NUrPwhSXwVk
As Ukraina
reported at the time, this stunning revelation means that not only has Ukraine been quietly
depleting its gold throughout the year, but that the latest official number, according to which
Ukraine gold was 8 times greater than the reported 1%, was fabricated, and that the real number
is about 90% lower.
According to official statistics the NBU, the amount of gold in the vaults should be eight
times more than is actually in stock. At the beginning of this month, the volume of gold was
about $ 1 billion, or 8% of the total gold reserves. Now this is just one percent.
Assuming Gonaterva's admission was true, it would imply that the official reserve data at
the Central Bank was clearly fabricated, prompting questions about just how long ago the actual
gold "displacement" took place. Could it have been during a cold night in March when "more than
40 heavy boxes" full of gold were loaded up on the plane and flown off to an unknown
destination in the US?
To help out in this puzzle, we got some additional information from Rusila, which in Nov 2014
reported that "Ukraine's gold reserves disappeared."
According to recent data, the value of Ukraine gold should be $988.7 million. That is the
value of gold proportion of gold in gold reserves is 8%. If you believe Gontareva, it turns
out there is a mere $123.6 million in gold remaining. The figure is fantastic, considering
that the amount of gold at the end of February (when the new authorities have already taken
key positions) was $1.8 billion or 12% of the reserves.
In other words, since the beginning of the year gold reserves dropped almost 16 times.
Gold stock in February were approximately 21 tons of gold, the presence of which was once
proudly reported by Sergei Arbuzov, who led the NBU in 2010-2012. So what happened to 20.8
tons of gold?
Explaining the dramatic reduction in the context of the hryvnia devaluation through gold
sales is impossible. After all, 92% of the reserves of the National Bank is in the form of a
foreign currency that is much easier to use to maintain hryvnia levels and cover current
liabilities. Besides since March the international price of gold has plummeted. Selling gold
under such circumstances is a crime . In fact it would be more expedient to increase gold
reserves through currency conversion in precious metals.
But apparently the result is not due to someone's negligence or carelessness. The gold
reserve has been actively carted out of the country, as a result of the very vague economic
and political prospects of Ukraine. Something similar happened to the gold reserves of the
USSR - when the Gorbachev elite realized that perestroika is leading the country to the
abyss, gold simply disappeared in an unknown direction.
Oddly enough there was no official gold reduction just prior to the time when
Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was planning Yanukovich's ouster, and as shown above, quite
the contrary: Ukraine's gold pile was increasing with every passing year... until it collapsed
in early 2014. It is a little more odd that it was during the period when Ukraine was
"supported" by its western allies that several billion dollars worth of physical gold - the
people's gold - just "vaporized."
Which brings us to the $1.8 billion question: what happened to Ukraine's gold, because if
the now former central banker's story is accurate, that's roughly the amount of gold that
quietly left the country just days after the US-backed presidential coup. And, it is also
roughly how much taxpayer-funded Ukraine aid, procured by Joe Biden
while his son was working at Burisma , is now missing.
At this point, there are certainly many pressing questions but one stands out: was the real
" quid pro quo" not one of Trump holding up payments to Kiev in exchange for a probe of Biden -
which after reading all of the above is more than warranted - but if the quo , namely US
support for regime change in Ukraine and almost two billion in now missing taxpayer funds which
ended up in an oligarch's bank and mysteriously "vaporized" but not before said oligarch hired
the son of the US vice president, wasn't the quid to some 40 tons of Ukraine leaving forever to
an unknown destination in the US.
We hope that Trump's second term will provide ample time and opportunity to answer this
critical question, and just to set off investigators on the right track, we believe that any
investigation should begin with the former central bank head, Gontareva, who he
also fled to London where she now lives in self-appointed exile and where she now
"fears for her life" after one of her homes near Kiev was badly damaged in an arson attack, and
was also injured in August when she was knocked down by a car in London. Failing that, one can
always check the flight manifests and the cargo contents of all planes that left the Ukraine
and arrived in the US on March 7, 2014 with a cargo consisting of billions of dollars in
gold...
"It's Time To Ask Again What Really Happened To Ukraine's Missing Gold"
It is also time to ask what happened to the Libyan gold.
It really seems like the criminal syndicate controlling its US government puppets is
nothing more than a modern version of the Vikings where they go into sovereign nations to
loot and pillage.
Since all of the US gold and the gold of foreign countries held in custody has been leased
out (never to return) to keep the price of gold low and that Germany wanted their gold back
they had to find gold somewhere: Ukraine's gold! No mystery here and the $1.8 billion
American tax payers money was the payment for this. Lots of corrupt Ukrainians and Americans
got their share of this. No mystery here.
Ukraines "Crowdstrike" Is the elephant in the room. Funny how Trumps transcripts mention
Crowdstrike, yet not one lawyer brought it up in the hearings.
Karl Marx was called Mordechai Levy and no one is still indignant, and Leon Trotsky was
called Leiba Bronstein and again no one is indignant, and you pester this innocent boy with
his innocent surname. Shame on you! :) ~
Now that even the dirt is sold piece by piece,loaded on cargo trains and taken out from
Ukraine, the prospect of anothe "holodomor" looks ever so promisingly close.
The missing Ukraine gold is no surprise knowing the country's reputation, but what is
still puzzling is what the hell happened to all the damn Libyan gold that was going to be
used to start a friggin' new currency?
On another Ukraine related note, just got done watching the Beck show referenced and
linked above. I normally avoid Beck but this piece by him is well worth the watch. Skip
through the short self-promo in the very beginning and you'll be fine.
I wonder if theyever recovered that gold that they failed to heist when silverstein and
the rest of the Jewish mob blew up NY.
They had the gold already in trucks. It looks like something went wrong. Since the whole
underground was a foundary for a week due to thermite, they may have never gotten it out.
umm.. there is a monument there now. This means construction. Trucks come and go.. maybe
they come empty and leave full..
And lots of labor. I can presume those were all jewish bankers doing the digging and
pretending to be blue collars.
"This transaction of $1.8 billion ... with the help of fake contracts was simply an
asset siphoning operation."
Here is the main problem with USA law compared to God law. If a contract is made by
fraudulent representations, the contract is actually said to voidable but not invalid. To
have some grievance, you would have to take the contract to court to get get it voided, but
in the meantime it is a valid contract. Therefore, fraudulent misrepresentation can be a big
cash cow if you are able to keep your defrauded counter party ignorant of the fraud terms in
which he is involved. When I went to Exide in late 2018, shortly after the beginning of
October, I asked for the copies of all the agreements into which me or my person had been
subjected. I went to their office, and I demanded the termination of all agreements, and the
copies of all agreements. The HR manager, Mr Gay, refused to give me the documents, and then
he called the cops on me to have them take me away without any of the things I asked for. The
cops issued me a CT against ever returning to Exide, and I went to jail on a municipal
warrant taken out against me after I spat in my roommate's face due to him usuing sexual
torture electrodes each afternoon when he would come home. He snickered at me maliciously in
the hall when I confronted him about it, and then I spat in his face shortly thereafter in
the kitchen. I would to smash their heads with hammers who hypnotize and drug me and enter my
apartment in the night to do evil things. Then the next day after I got arrested trying to
get copies of the docs relevant to my concurrent and direct allegations of criminal
fraudulent misrepresentation against Exide, such that Exide had misrepresented the terms of
the hiring package to me in the summer of 2016. I think it's because I am trying to kill the
CIA, or the FBI, or both likely, they said in the summer of 2016, "Let's get him to to says
he's actually joining us instead of trying to kill us, so that way it will be harder for him
to kill us when we make everyone else think we are willing collaborators. I think when they
told me at Exide that I would help them in the SQL part of their IT department, and they were
a just-out-of-bankruptcy manufacturer and seller of electrical batteries, and they gave me a
huge pile of hiring paperwork that I signed in good faith without ever looking at, what they
had actually given me was a fraud contract with terms totally unrelated to what I had
discussed with the hiring manager, likely Chief Justice John Roberts in a Steve Collins mask.
So, the problem with USA law is that Exide has a valid contract as long as they can get away
with refusing to give me the papers, then also issuing a criminal trespass notice so that I
could never try again to get the papers. Then then next day, or perhaps the same day, Jamal
"Cash O.G." Khashoggi went to get his "divorce papers" from the Saudi Embassy, and he "got
killed" for doing it. The stock market crashed that day, and there was a problem in the
Mueller investigation that got "quickly resolved." What was quickly resolved was that under
USA law a fraud contract is voidable but not invalid. So... I think the "anti-Trump insurance
policy" of summer 2016 was the conspiracy of fraudulent misrepresentation at Exide. Compared
to God law, the only part of the contract which is valid is the the part we discussed and
shook hands on. It was said that in ancient Israel after two men would agree on terms of
business, one man would give his sandal to the other to signify that they were agreeing to
exactly what was discussed and nothing else.
The plane touched down Tel Aviv for aviation fuel and refreshments. The secretive cargo
was offloaded and a manifest notation indicates an additional 17 dancing Israelis flew on to
Andrew's airforce base.
Why do I believe that the unmarked US jet that was overnight in Little Rock a few months
back is connected to this? Probably because Biden is still a 2nd tier player and not a chief
benefactor.
Since they lost China and everything else is going wrong, I wonder if they will try a
temporarily gold backed currency again next time. They will do whatever it takes to own a
reserve currency. It is the demon's lifeblood.
Maidan and the coup attempt in Venezuela, was also accompanied by robbery. After Trump and
his disenfranchised vassals declared the clown Guaido - President, the Bank of England froze
all the gold assets of Venezuela.
BTW Vindman quit his job so why was it bad for Trump to remove him early? Games
lol, Joe demands a standing ovation for Lt. Col. Vindman, a security state apparatchik
who was offended that Trump didn't read from the talking points he prepared. Beyond
parody
Not at all. But, Vindman should take a lesson from Frank "Five Angels" Pentangelli. If you go
for the king, you had best be successful. Otherwise, it will not end up well... for you!
He told his opinion. It wasn't facts! Vindman was just upset that Trump didn't take his
advice on Ukraine and became vindictive! Such a small petulant thing to do. That's why he got
fired!
He did nothing wrong by testifying.
He violated the UCMJ by talking to the whistleblower.
He discussed classified information with someone (the whistle blower) who was not authorized
to know that information.
That is a clear violation of the UCMJ.
Were he a civilian he was just a leaker. Since he is in the military, it doesn't get much
worse.
Loose lips sink ships.
He is very lucky he is not facing a court marshall
Hm....
Michael Flynn is also a "decorated veteran", but that has not stopped the left from attacking
him.
Also, did you have a problem with the draft dodging Bill Clinton being the commander in
chief? When did Joe Biden serve? Barack Obama
Anyone who worships the bureaucracy over the U.S. Constitution is not a real American. I will
come to the defense of a duly elected president, no matter the party, over a stinking
bureaucrat who is trying to overturn the previous election and determine the next.
It would be interesting to see how much the Vindman brothers engaged in any leaks to the
media during the course of their work at the White House.
It appears the Lt. Col. was colluding with the so called whistle blower
Because he's an anti-Trumper who was using his position to undermine the President. Vindman
was upset that HIS view of things was not on the same page as the President, and that the
President did not do what he wanted.
If Obama had a guy working in his White House who was actively working to undermine him, I
doubt if the left would have been whining if the guy/gal was re-assigned to a job outside of
that White Hosue.
Vindman is a spy for the left, and can't be trusted.
Did Vindman act like a LtC? He sure as hell didn't follow the chain of command did he? If
that's the case he should be court martialed. And by the way, who ASSIGNED this partisan
dirtbag, anyway?
According to CNN and testimony by Tim Morrison, Vindman didn't consult him. Morrison is
Vindman's direct supervisor. Are you trying to tell me that CNN has their reporting wrong
I didn't know Vindman controlled foreign policy. Tell me, where in Article Two does it say
NSC advisers dictate foreign policy. These bureaucracies have become rogue entities
completely subverting our constitution and its federalist principles
There was nothing illegal of what he did. He is the commander in chief and responsible for
foreign policy. He is also responsible for ferreting out corruption and there is no doubt the
Biden's are corrupt.
Say what you will about people that live their conscience. This will NOT bode well for Trump
with the military. I live at Joint Base Lewis-McChord and I see more disdain for Trump every
day.
There are plenty of dirtbags who lived by their conscience, the Jacobins of the French
Revolution and the Bolsheviks are a good example of that. And I'm not buying your assertion
that the military has disdain for President Trump. I've had plenty of experience with
liberals lies
Academic historians reject anything smacking of inevitably . Instead they emphasize the
contingency of events as manifested through the inherent agency of human beings and the
countless decisions they make. On the merits, such scholars are basically correct. That said,
there was something – if not inevitable – highly probable, almost (forgive me)
deterministic about the two cataclysmic world wars of the 20th century. Both, in retrospect,
were driven, in large part, by collective – particularly Western – nations'
adherence to a series of geopolitical philosophies.
The first war – which killed perhaps nine million soldiers in the sodden trench lines
(among other long forgotten places) of Europe – began, in part, due to the continental,
and especially maritime, competition between Imperial Great Britain, and a new, rising, and
highly populous, land power, Imperial Germany. Both had pretensions to global leadership;
Britain's old and long-standing, Germany's recent and aspirational – tinged with a sense
of long-denied deservedness. Political and military leaders on both sides – along with
other European (and the Japanese) nations – then pledged philosophical fealty to the
theories
of an American Navy man, Alfred Thayer Mahan. To simplify, Mahan's core postulation –
published from a series of lectures as The Influence of Sea Power Upon History – was that
geopolitical power in the next (20th) century would be inherently maritime. The countries that
maintained large, modern navies, held strategic coaling stations, and expanded their coastal,
formal empires, would dominate trade, develop the strongest economies, and, hence, were apt to
global paramountcy. Conversely, traditional land power – mass armies prepared to march
across vast land masses – would become increasingly irrelevant.
Mahan's inherently flawed, or at least exaggerated, conclusions – and his own clear
institutional (U.S. Navy) bias – aside, key players in two of the major powers of Europe
seemed to buy the philosophy hook-line-and-sinker. So, when Wilhelmine Germany took the
strategic decision to rapidly expand its own colonial fiefdoms (before the last patches of
brown-people-inhabited land were swallowed up) and, thereby necessarily embarked on a crash
naval buildup to challenge the British Empire's maritime supremacy, the stage was set for a
massive war. And, with most major European rivals – hopelessly hypnotized by nationalism
– locked in a wildly byzantine, bipolar alliance system, all that was needed to turn the
conflict global was a spark: enter the assassin Gavrilo Princip, a pistol, Austrian Archduke
Franz Ferdinand, and it was game
on .
The Second World War – which
caused between 50-60 million deaths – was, of course, an outgrowth of the first. It's
causes were multifaceted and complicated. Nonetheless, particularly in its European theater,
it, too, was driven by a geopolitical theorist and his hypotheses. This time the culprit was a
Briton, Halford John Mackinder. In contrast with Mahan, Mackinder postulated a land-based,
continental power theory. As such, he argued that the "pivot" of global
preeminence lay in the control of Eurasia – the "World Island" – specifically
Central Asia and Eastern Europe. These resource rich lands held veritable buried treasure for
the hegemon, and, since they lay on historical trade routes, were strategically positioned.
Should an emergent, ambitious, and increasingly populated, power – say, Nazi Germany
– need additional territory (what Hitler called " Lebensraum ") for
its race, and resources (especially oil) for its budding war machine, then it needed to seize
the strategic "heartland" of the World Island. In practice, that meant the Nazis theoretically
should, and did, shift their gaze (and planned invasion) from their outmoded Mahanian rival
across the English Channel, eastward to the Ukraine, Caucasus (with its ample oil reserves),
and Central Asia. Seeing as all three regions were then – and to lesser extent, still
– dominated by Russia, the then Soviet Union, the unprecedentedly bloody existential war
on Europe's Eastern Front appears ever more certain and explainable.
Germany lost both those wars: the first badly, the second, disastrously. Then, in a sense,
the proceeding 45-year Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union – the only two big
winners in the Second World War – may be seen as an extension or sequel to
Mackinder-driven rivalry. The problem is that after the end of – at least the first
– Cold War, Western, especially American, strategists severely
miscalculated . In their misguided triumphalism, US geopolitical theorists both provoked a
weak (but not forever so) Russia by expanding the NATO alliance far eastward, but posited
premature (and naive) theories that assumed global finance, free (American-skewed) trade, and
digital dominance were all that mattered in a "Post" Cold War world.
No one better defined this magical thinking more than the still – after having been
wrong about just about every US foreign policy decision of the last two decades –
prominent New York Times columnist , Thomas Friedman. In article after article,
and books with such catchy titles as The World is Flat , and The Lexus and the Olive Tree ,
Friedman argued, essentially, that old realist geopolitics were dead, and all that really
mattered for US hegemony was the proliferation of McDonald's franchises worldwide.
Friedman was wrong; he always is (Exhibit A: the 2003 Iraq War). Today, with a surprisingly
– at least with his prominent base – popular president, Donald J. Trump, impeached
in the House and
just acquitted by the Senate for alleged crimes misleadingly summed up as "Ukraine-gate," a
look at the
real issues at hand in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, demonstrate that, for better or
(probably) worse, the ghost of Mackinder still haunts the scene. For today, I'd argue, the
proxy battle over Ukraine between the U.S. and its allied-coup-empowered government –
which includes some neo-nazi political
and military elements – and Russian-backed separatists in the country's east, reflects a
return to the battle for Eurasian resource and geographic predominance.
Neither Russia nor the United States is wholly innocent in fueling and escalating the
ongoing Ukrainian Civil War. The difference is, that in post-Russiagate farce, chronically
(especially among mainstream Democrat) alleged Russia-threat-obsessed America, reports of
Moscow's ostensible guilt literally saturate the media space. The reporting from Washington?
Not so much.
The truth is that a generation of prominent "liberal" American, born-again Russia-hawks
– Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, the whole DNC
apparatus , and the MSNBC corporate media crowd –
wielded State Department, NGO, and
economic pressure to help catalyze a pro-Western coup in Ukraine during and after 2014.
Their opportunism seemed, to them, simple, and relatively cost-free, at the time, but has
turned implacably messy in the ensuing years.
In the process, the Democrats haven't done themselves any political favors, further sullying
what's left of their reputation by – in some
cases – colluding with Ukrainians to undermine key Trump officials; and consorting
with nefarious
far-right nationalist local bigots (who may have conspired to kill protesters in the
Maidan "massacre," as a means to instigate further Western support for the coup). What's more,
while much of the conspiratorial Trump-team spin on direct, or illegal, Biden family
criminality has proven false, neither Joe nor son Hunter, are exactly "clean." The Democratic
establishment, Biden specifically, may, according to an excellent recent Guardian editorial
, have a serious "corruption problem" – no least of which involves explaining exactly why
a then sitting vice president's son, who had no serious diplomatic or energy sector experience,
was paid $50,000 a month to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company .
Fear not, the "Never-Trump" Republicans, and establishment Democrats seemingly intent on
drumming up a new – presumably politically profitable – Cold War have already
explanation. They've dug up the long ago discredited, but still publicly palatable,
justification that the US must be prepared to fight Russia "over there," before it has no
choice but to battle them "over here" (though its long been unclear where "here" is , or how ,
exactly, that fantasy comes to pass). First, there's the distance factor: though several
thousands of miles away from the East Coast of North America, Ukraine is in Russia's
near-abroad. After all, it was long – across many different generational
political/imperial structures – part of the Soviet Union or other Russian empires. A
large subsection of the populace, especially in the East, speaks, and considers itself, in
part, culturally, Russian.
Furthermore, the Russian threat, in 2020, is highly exaggerated. Putin is not Stalin. The
Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union; and, hell, even the Soviet (non-nuclear) military
threat and geopolitical ambitions were embellished throughout Cold War "Classic." A simple
comparative "
tale-of-the-tape " illustrates as much. Economically and demographically, Russia is
demonstrably an empirically declining power –
its economy, in fact, about the size of
Spain's.
Nor is the defense of an imposed, pro-Western, Ukrainian proxy state a vital American
national security interest worth bleeding, or risking nuclear war, over. As MIT's Barry Posen
has argued ,
"Vital interests affect the safety, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and power position of
the United States," and, "If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to 'fall' to Russia, it would
have little impact on the security of the United States." Furthermore, as retired US Army
colonel, and president of the restraint-based Quincy Institute, Andrew Bacevich,
has advised , the best policy, if discomfiting, is to "tacitly acknowledge[e] the existence
of a Russian sphere of influence." After all, Washington would expect, actually demand, the
same acquiescence of Moscow in Mexico, Canada, or, for that matter, the entire Americas.
Unfortunately, no such restrained prudence is likely, so long as the bipartisan American
national security state continues to subscribe to some vague version of the Mackinder theory.
Quietly, except among wonky regional experts and investigative reporters on the scene, the US
has, before, but especially since the "opportunity" of the 9/11 attacks, entered full-tilt into
a competition with Russia and China for physical, economic, and resource dominance from Central
Asia to the borderlands of Eastern Europe. That's why, as a student at the Army's Command and
General Staff College in 2016-17, all us officers focused almost exclusively on planning
fictitious, but highly realistic, combat missions in the Caucasus region. It also partly
explains why the US military, after 18+ years, remains ensconced in potentially $3 trillion
resource-rich Afghanistan, which, not coincidentally, is America's one serious physical
foothold in land-locked Central Asia.
Anecdotally, but instructively, I remember well my four brief stops at the once ubiquitous
US Air Force way-station into Afghanistan – Manas Airbase – in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
Off-base "liberty" – even for permanent party airmen – was rare, in part, because
the Russian military had a mirror base just across the city. What's more, the previous, earlier
stopover spot for Afghanistan – Uzbekistan – kicked out the US
military in 2005, in part, due to Russian political and economic pressure to do so.
Central Asia and East Europe are also contested spaces regarding the control of competing
– Western vs. Russian vs. Chinese – oil and natural gas
pipeline routes and trade corridors. Remember, that China's massive " One Belt
– One Road " infrastructure investment program is mostly self-serving, if sometimes
mutually beneficial . The plan means to link Chinese manufacturing to the vast consumerist
European market mainly through transportation, pipeline, diplomatic, and military connections
running through
where? You guessed it: Central Asia, the Caucasus, and on through Eastern Europe.
Like it or not, America isn't poised to win this battle, and its feeble efforts to do so in
these remarkably distant locales smacks of global hegemonic ambitions and foolhardy, mostly
risk, nearly no reward, behavior. Russia has a solid army in close proximity, a hefty nuclear
arsenal, as well as physical and historical connections to the Eurasian Heartland; China has an
even better, more balanced, military, enough nukes, and boasts a far more powerful,
spendthrift-capable, economy. As for the US, though still militarily and (for now) economically
powerful, it lacks proximity, faces difficult logistical / expeditionary challenges, and has
lost much legitimacy and squandered oodles of good will with the regional countries being vied
for. Odds are, that while war may not be inevitable, Washington's weak hand and probable
failure, nearly is.
Let us table, for the purposes of this article, questions regarding any environmental
effects of the great powers' quest for, extraction, and use of many of these regional
resources. My central points are two-fold:
first, that Ukraine – which represents an early stage in Washington's rededication
to chauvinist, Mackinder geostrategy – as a proxy state for war with Russia is not an
advisable or vital interest;
second, that Uncle Sam's larger quest to compete with the big two (Eur)Asian powers is
likely to fail and symptomatic of imperial confusion and desperation.
As the U.S. enters an increasingly bipolar phase of world affairs, powerful national
security leaders fear its diminishing power. Washington's is, like it or not, an empire in
decline; and, as we know from history, such entities behave badly on the downslope of hegemony.
Call me cynical, but I'm apt to believe that the United States, as perhaps the most powerful
imperial body of all time, is apt, and set, to act poorest of all.
The proxy fight in Ukraine, battle for Central Asia in general – to say nothing of
related American aggression and provocations in Iran and the Persian Gulf – could be the
World War III catalyst that the Evangelical militarist nuts, Vice President Pence and Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, unwilling to wait on Jesus Christ's eschatological timeline, have long
waited for . These characters seemingly possess the heretical temerity to believe man
– white American men, to be exact – can and should incite or stimulate Armageddon
and the Rapture.
If they're proved "right" or have their way – and the Mikes just might – then
nuclear cataclysm will have defied the Vegas odds and beat the house on the expected human
extinction
timeline. Only contra to the bloody prophecy set forth in the New Testament book of
Revelations, it won't be Jesus wielding his vengeful sword on the back of a white horse, but
– tragic and absurdly – the perfect Antichrist stooge, pressing the red button, who
does the apocalyptic deed .
* * *
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com . His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation,
Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat
tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma
mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,
Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War , is available for preorder on Amazon.
Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet . Check out his professional website for contact info, scheduling speeches,
and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
"it won't be Jesus wielding his vengeful sword on the back of a white horse, but –
tragic and absurdly – the perfect Antichrist stooge, pressing the red button, who does
the apocalyptic deed .'
The World is full of people who would like to be the one who pushes that button, no matter
what happens!
There is an hint of Samson Option, which basically says; If I can't have it all, then none
shall have anything! Don't blame anyone it is just the nature of man, probably both sides
believe in this! Who will wiling submit to slavery?
Europe will become free when the last armed American occupier leaves the European
continent. This axiom is also valid for Japan, South Korea and other countries.
Space and the moon is the latest theory for how to acheive empire and defend yourself from
empire.
Well defended soverignty that is helpful and useful to other sovereign trading partners in
a diverse mutipolar world of sovereigns, not so much as yet. Switzerland is kind of that and
Russia looks like they're working on it.
China aspires to empire and America aspires not to lose theirs and is taking instructions
from Israel on how to do that.
Melchizedek gave Abraham these seven laws of how to get along. Empire ambitious nations
have trouble with numbers 3, 4 and 5.
93:4.7 (1017.9) 1. You shall not serve any God but the Most High Creator of heaven and
earth.
93:4.8 (1017.10) 2. You shall not doubt that faith is the only requirement for eternal
salvation.
93:4.9 (1017.11) 3. You shall not bear false witness.
93:4.10 (1017.12) 4. You shall not kill.
93:4.11 (1017.13) 5. You shall not steal.
93:4.12 (1018.1) 6. You shall not commit adultery.
93:4.13 (1018.2) 7. You shall not show disrespect for your parents and elders.
When China and Russia abandon the dollar, all that's left for the Empire is Canada and
South America, and they've never been able to stop themselves making a mess of everywhere
south of the fence.
Pretty good article and summation of what America has become and what to expect. America
has sure lost a lot of ground since the 1990's. It's really hard to see America winning at
anything these days.
When the "strategists" were penning their hegemonic theories, they woefully failed to
peruse history properly, especially that of human nature put on existential defense..
Either they were not human, or stunted development humans for were they properly developed
humans, they'd have understood eventual reaction to unprovoked aggression..
Such responses often tend to be totally destructive, especially after long suffering from
aggression..
Now, regarding the BRI/OBOR, we've been saying to the West, if they think it's not good
enough, what inputs, devoid of coercion, rapine, aggression, or deceit, they'd suggest to
improve it..
And it was crickets for a while, until Germany woke up, and decided with Europe that
they'd contribute trade diplomacy..
We're still waiting for that of America under the current Admin, and all we observe is
bullying, coercion, and reality denial..
Until a Bernard Sanders seized the initiative, that with a continously finessed Green New
Deal, the United States of America will lead in the environmental aspect of global trade and
commerce, which the EU has also committed to doing as well..
So then Major, perhaps the time has finally arrived for America to eschew aggression and
imperialism, in favor of the erstwhile business of America.. Trade and Commerce..
So for those who desire swamp drained, and a fresh start for America, you might wanna go
chat with, and support Bernard Sanders, the future, and Us..
Then dump the swamp critters and their current admin enabler..
But as in all things, we can only show you the way.. Traveling on it however, is your
sovereign prerogative..
The author still tends to think that it is all because of missteps, mistakes, ignorance,
incompetence, stupidity....
If you step back from the fray.....and don't get caught up in red/blue team nonsense, it
becomes apparent that there is a theme/strategy that is being played out. It appears to be
conducted in evolutionary phases with Wars allowing larger and more overt advances in their
agenda. Simply put order out of chaos.
We are now about to be manipulated into another major evolutionary phase to advance the
globalist agenda. All the conditions are set for their next major order out of
chaos...scheme. It is pretty obvious that Nationalism/Populism will be the scapegoat for the
cause of the chaos to come. The US will take center stage as an example that you cannot trust
a single country (uni-polar world) not to abuse its power....and history has shown a
multi-polar situation leads to major wars...creating chaos around the world.
Their answer will be global governance and their dream of a global feudalistic utopia will
be well on its way to being realized. Hold on, we are about to enter a global "great leap
forward"...
Allow me a moment to thank -- and this may be a bit of a surprise -- Adam Schiff. Were it
not for his crack investigation skills, @realDonaldTrump might have had a
tougher time unearthing who all needed to be fired. Thanks, Adam! 🤣
#FullOfSchiff
Update (6:55 p.m.): Today's Trump admin casualties continue to stack up, after it was reported
that Ambassador Gordon Sondland was fired Friday afternoon.
" I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United
States Ambassador to the European Union," Sondland said in a Friday statement, expressing
gratitude to Trump for having "given me the opportunity to serve."
Sondland testified in Trump's impeachment inquiry that there was no quid pro quo when
President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens while
withholding US military aid (unbeknownst to Zelensky at the time). Sondland later flipped his
story, claiming that he told a top Ukrainian official that a meeting with President Trump may be
contingent upon its new administration committing to investigations Trump wanted, according to
the New York Times .
Sondland's departure comes one week after anti-Trump impeachment witness and former US
ambassador to Ukraine announced her retirement from the State Department . Her departure follows
her removal as Ambassador at the request of Ukraine.
* * *
Anti-Trump impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother have been fired
and escorted out of the White House by security, according to his Alexander Vindman's
attorney.
News -- Lt. Col. Vindman was just escorted out of the White House by security and told his
services were no longer needed.
Vindman, a Ukraine specialist who sat on the National Security Counsel who was accused of
being
coached by House Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), was present on a July 25 phone
call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, when the US president
asked that Ukraine investigate former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims of
pro-Clinton meddling in the 2016 US election.
He was also notably counseling Ukraine on how to counter President Trump's foreign policy
according to the
New York Times , which led some to go as far as accuse him of being a double agent .
The now-former White House employee, who admitted to
violating the chain of command when he reported his concerns over the call, had been rumored
to be on the chopping block for much of Friday.
"He followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country... And for that, the most
powerful man in the world - buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to
exact revenge," said his attorney, David Pressman.
LTC Vindman escorted from WH, per his lawyer David Pressman: "He followed orders, he obeyed
his oath, and he served his country... And for that, the most powerful man in the world -
buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to exact revenge."
pic.twitter.com/u0CAB13iln
I can't wait for the next 4+ years of Trump.... The only ones left will be Jarred and
friends and those rejoicing right now will be wondering how we allowed an administration to
eliminate and assassinate those that went up against the establishment.....err the takeover of
Israel.
So the Ukinazies got served. They wanted to go dem style and got served. Or severed if you
will from the gubbie titty they were breastfeeding on. Ask Nancy. Maybe she needs her lawn
mowed. Fuckers.
Update (6:55 p.m.): Today's Trump admin casualties continue to stack up, after it
was reported that Ambassador Gordon Sondland was fired Friday afternoon.
I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements he had to sign ?
If Vindman "followed orders" he wouldn't have tried to undermine the President's foreign
policy, nor violated the chain of command. Vindman is putting his, the Democrats, and Ukraine's
interests all before the US's interests.
"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
Mitt Romney's decision to convict President Trump on the impeachment charge of abuse of
power was " motivated by bitterness and jealousy ," according to former Romney spokesman Rick
Gorka, who added that President Trump has "accomplished what he [Mitt] has failed to do
multiple times."
These are the same people that hated Mitt in 2012 and they will hate him again when they
are done with him. It is sad to see that Mitt has not learned the lessons from 2012. Now he
has betrayed his Party and millions of voters.
"These are the same people that hated Mitt in 2012 and they will hate him again when they
are done with him," Gorka added. "
It is sad to see that Mitt has not learned the lessons from 2012. Now he has betrayed his
Party and millions of voters."
While that's a good theory, at least a few people have been passing around this Federalist article from September, 2019 which notes that Romney adviser Cofer
Black worked with Hunter Biden on the board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma .
According to web archives, top Mitt Romney adviser Joseph Cofer Black, who publicly goes
by "Cofer Black," joined Burisma's board of directors while Hunter Biden was also serving on
the board.
According to The New Yorker , Hunter joined Burisma's board in April of 2014 and
remained on it until he declined to renew his position this past May. Meanwhile, according to
Burisma's website, Black was appointed in February of 2017 and continues to serve on its
board. The timelines would indicate that Black and Biden worked together at Burisma, and
indeed, web archives
from late 2017 show Black and Biden listed simultaneously on the board. -
The Federalist
This picture may or may not sum up Romney's utter contempt for Donald Trump:
At least the good thing about Mitt Romney, he has a mind of his own. Can't say that about
the rest of the Republicans who go around marching in lock step to the party's tune, like
mechanical robots. (Talk about Communism)!!!!!!
Wait until you find out what else he did. This was the believable part. A democrat cut off
Romney's balls after the first debate with Obama. The dirt must be pretty vile, my guess is
that Trump has the dirt 2.
You just know when you look at Mittens he as a total dweeb and never got laid in high
school or probably college either. The girls he lusted after were actually ******* their
brains out with the bad boys--like Trump. There was a time when I almost--almost felt sorry
for guys like him because they just didn't 'get it". Mittens probably recoiled in terror the
first time he heard Queen's "Tie your mother down".
So, Mittens grew up and got even. Fucked over lots of blue collar middle class and their
supervisors. He hates Trump because he knows it was a guy like Trump that fucked all of his
girl friends behind his back. Trump reminded him of his cuckedness on the debate stage one
night. He did the same thing to JEB.
He has also betrayed his country and his oath to uphold the constitution, to the extent
that Trump was trying to have Biden investigated for his crimes.
It must always be remembered that Trump's impeachment was about Trump's alleged attempt to
have Biden investigated for crimes that Biden actually committed. If Trump really attempted
to do so, then he was doing his job as president.
Trump was accused of doing his job. Biden committed a crime, and then bragged about
it.
He split his vote at least... as for his vindictive side, well: We all know that exists!
His Utah voters will decide this as it's not up to us! Time Wounds All Heels! Poor Joe Biden
and Poor Mitt... 1 loss for Mitt, 2? 3? for Joe? God being a LOSER must really SUCK! Mitt:
Play for the Team or Switch Sides! Straddling the fence is not for Men... it's for Boys!
ROMNEY NEEDS TO RESIGN AS SENATOR FROM UTAH. if he had any integrity at all, that's what
he'd do as he surely doesn't represent the State of Utah. Only represents his bruised little
ego and he's a schmuck. Beta Male.
Resign? Are you kidding? These guys are brazen, in-your-face dishonest these days. Up
until Slick Willie's cigar shenigans, pols would resign for the good of the nation usually,
not any more.
My gawd, romney is the clear example of the bully next door who is just SO ticked off,
that his first cousin somehow won a brand new bike from entering a drawing at the county
fair, and then proceeds to call the cops on the cousin ratting him out that he never licensed
the bike with the city; Cousin then gets his bike impounded by the cops.....Just jealous as
all get out that HE didn't win the presidency but trump did. People of Utah had better wake
the hell up and dump this RINO asap. Shame on orrin hatch for recommending him in the first
place!!!!!!
Yeah, I had a sister like this. I bought a custom ordered 2000 Ford Ranger and she came to
visit me. She couldn't stand that I had a new truck (even though she knew I had lived without
any vehicle for years while I went to univ and rode public transit).
I would ride the bus to visit her for holidays or family stuff and she complained about me
calling to have her pick me up at the bus stop closest to her place (less than 2 miles). I
was expected to spend money topping off her gas tank for the honor of her picking me up along
with buying groceries and pot (for her to smoke).
I am glad to say I have never asked anyone to top off my gas tank, ever. Low class
move.
I don't understand being jealous over anything. It's material crap.
When he went to dinner with Trump that time that Trump was allegedly considering him for
Secretary of State, Trump made Romney eat frogs legs. Trump has a great sense of humor.
Really great.
Frog legs for the ******* frog that Romney is.........
Mitt says he's prepared to pay a dear cost for his betrayal of both his constituents, the
President and the party. So the bigger question is, why the **** is he in public office? He's
a billionaire, he doesn't need money. His family is prosperous and secure. He doesn't
represent the people of Utah or their wishes? He is hated and despised by both Republicans
and Democrats and the media establishment on both sides. He really needs to do some solid
introspective self examination. There is no place for his contemptable brand of high cuckery
in today's GOP. He is best served crossing the aisle to the Antiwhite party where such
nonsense is standard.
They really are two sides of the same **** coin. One inherited wealth, the other married
it. One lied about his service, the other lied to his voters. Both corrupt as hell grifters
that would do the world a favor by simply living like Howard Hughes in a dark hotel room.
The Romneys came over from England as Mormons in the 1860's. Not one Romney male, to
include now Mittens 5 sons, has ever served in the military. Big patriots they are.
A couple of generations did flee to Mexico to keep multiple wives.
Mittens dad, George was a big, squish liberal Republican. Govenor of Michigan and always
ready to raise taxes. George hated Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Mittens was a total squish and wimp like his father as Govenor of Massachusetts, raising
every fee, license, permit he could, and of course his signature abortion, Romneycare,
precursor to Obamacare.
Mittens ran against Ted Kennedy for Kennedys Senate seat, and had a chance against a
obvious un well, fat, drunk, pre brain cancer Ted, but Mittens was such a daddy's boy wimp,
the old pickled drunk biytch slapped little Mittens like the woose he was. Later fat Candy
Crowley would do the same.
Mittens has always been a wimpy, goody-two shoes wimp and resents Alpha dog males like
Trump.
I am nearing my finals, soon the University of Hedge will award me my PHD. I must however
include your comments in my discussions with ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS and the public at
large! up voted! U Next!
Haven't used that Ignore User button much. Just seems counter to free exchange. But you're
my exception. Got you pegged as a twisted INCEL type. Amirite?
On occasion I have down voted myself because the critics seemed so pathetic, and voting so
meaningful that, what the heck, help a poor short bus window licker out.
Iraq & Russia Look To Boost Military Ties While US Threatens Sanctions by
Tyler Durden Fri,
02/07/2020 - 19:45 0 SHARES In more continuing fallout over the Jan.3 assassination by drone of
the IRGC's Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iraq and Russia are preparing for deepening military
coordination , reports the AP .
Iraq's Defense Ministry announced Thursday that increased "cooperation and coordination" is
being discussed with Moscow amid worsened relations with Washington, which even last month
included President Trump issuing brazen
threats of "very big" sanctions on Baghdad if American troops are kicked out of the
country.
This week Iraqi army chief of staff Lt. Gen. Othman Al-Ghanimi and Russian Ambassador Maksim
Maksimov met to discuss future military cooperation. Crucially, Gen. Ghanimi highlighted
Russia's successful anti-ISIS operations over the past years , especially in Syria where the
Russian military has supported Assad since being invited there in 2015.
On Russia's role in Iraq, Ghanimi said Moscow had provided "our armed forces with
advanced and effective equipment and weapons that had a major role in resolving many battles,"
according to the ministry statement.
It's been long rumored that since late summer Baghdad and Moscow have been in talks to
deliver either Russia's advanced S-400 or S-300 anti-air missile defense systems - a prospect
which US officials have condemned.
Like other areas of the Middle East, as US adventurism heightens pressure for a US
withdrawal, Russia appears to be seizing the opportunity to move in. This much was affirmed in
AP's reporting, via at least one anonymous senior official :
A senior Iraqi military intelligence official told The Associated Press that Russia, among
other countries, has come forward to offer military support in the wake of fraught US.-Iraq
relations following Soleimani's killing .
"Iraq still needs aerial reconnaissance planes. There are countries that have given
signals to Iraq to support us or equip us with reconnaissance planes such as Russia and
Iran," said the official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the
information.
Many military analysts have of late noted that the "blowback" from the incredibly risky
operation which killed Soleimani will be a hastening of American forces' exit from the
region.
It could also actually serve to increase Baghdad's dependency on Iran - something which
appears to be already in the works. And now we have confirmation that Moscow will seek to
benefit as well from the worsened US-Iraq relations, certainly now at the lowest point since
the 2003 invasion and US attempt to build a new government. Tags Politics War Conflict
At last! After a full week of playing coy... about delivering any further bad newz from
the muddled east which might further demolish the spirits of our local lovers of spirit
cookin, 'death to amerika' shoutin jihadi huggin regimes
our fearless ferret newz aggregator have delivered us something to chew on.. and spit out!
What febrile gems of crude agitprop await the wondering gaze of the gallery? How bout...
Russia, among other countries, has come forward to offer military support in the wake of
fraught US.-Iraq relations following Soleimani's killing .
as a clear example of the genre of laughable attacks upon common sense and truth in
media... faculties which - when employed - direct our attention to some simple facts curious
scrubbed from this whitewash with which "white hat" superhero Russkies... trundle around the
globe delivering toyz that made loud noise... to downtrodden 'strongman' regimes
as mere tokens of friendly 'solidarity fo'ever or whatever. Simple facts... such as...
due to an unfortunate episode in fellow neo-Bolshevik statecapitalist paradise Sinostan...
the neo-Bolshie paradise on the Muscovy is facing a collapse of its bread earner gas n oil
sales... such that the only thing tween it and yet abother state bankruptcy... is the
burgeoning Russian armaments industry! Selling guns and munitions to downtrodden strongman
regimes is the last best hope it seems... for a Russia foiled at every turn by Urusalems
steady burnnnn
and with a neo-mercantilist flourish which it has clearly learned... from watching the
chinks perform their 'resource extractive' shakedown ... of shaky regimes around the
world.... Moscow now seeks to extract from cash poor states which need guns with which to
threaten either their own citizens, or those of neighboring states..
UUUGE concessions in the form of .... diamonds, metals, petroleum resources... or
strategic real estate... in return for its deadly 'product line!' All of which is 'totally
fine'... if you read tween lines...
so that ...WHEN EVIL CHABADDY talmudic GANGSTERS living in the wester world... peddle
their wares of weaponry to weirdo regimes.... THAT IS .... A BAD THANG!
BUT butt... when evil chabbaddy talmudic oilygarch GANGTAS WITH RUSSKY PASSPORTS do the
peddlin.... with the approval of the Kremlin puppet regime...
its all GOOD!
HE HE HEH... WHO really buys into this ******** anyhoo? Only an echo chamber o tiresome
russo-talmudic trolls workin the board nite n day!
America is far from a Christian nation. No nation that murders babies for body parts is a
Christian nation (yes abortion funded by the government and the part being sold). America
will feel the rather of God for that.
Those helicopters just look like junk--total pieces of ****. I know two guys who saw them
up close and personal--not even as advanced inside as US gear in the late '60s.
Too bad your state of da art militrary couldn't take down goat herders in Afghanistan
after 20 years. The Russians at least pulled out after 10 years. Does that mean America is
doubly stoopid?
Don't kid yourself. Putin is smart, probably the smartest leader out there. But what
motivates him are the best interests of Russia. He doesn't care much about Friendships, not
with Iran, not with Syria or Israel...
...certainly now at the lowest point since the 2003 invasion and US attempt to build a
new government.
U.S meddling and regime change- nothing new.
Besides- anyone buying Russian military equipment will get much more 'bang for their buck'
compared to over-priced, failure ridden U.S (((M.I.C))) crap.
Baghdad and Moscow have been in talks to deliver either Russia's advanced S-400 or S-300
anti-air missile defense systems
I don't think those systems are that advanced. Both are quite old. I'm sure US (and
Israel) have the means to jam and neutralize both those system, about the same as the
Israelis evade the whole Syrian air defense system.
"Lowest point since the 2003 invasion and US attempt to build a new government."
There's the problem right there, the JUSA thinks "their type of Government" has to be
accepted by Iraqi's. This is why amongst countless other thing Iraqi's have had it with the
JUSA.
Russia can't sail past or through Turkey while also being at war with them, which is what
they are going to have to do if they want to stop Turkey from taking Syrian (then Iraqi, then
Kuwaiti, then Saudi) oil fields, in the absence of a US presence in the region.
Putin suks as much Netanyahu dik as Trump. And the dum arz Christians in Russia, much like
US Christians dont give a faq!! Christians have been ignorant sheep to dictators for 2000
years!
...except the Russians are not complete morons to let themselves get screwed like the US.
Just ask the people of Venezuela how Russia has 'saved' their country.
no single military in the world can beat the usa military but a coalition of many of them
will kick zionazi ***. putin is building a real coalition of the willing to counter the dying
zionazi empire.
A great many awakening people continue to be in thrall to the cult of personality that's
been built around Vladimir Putin. They have passively and uncritically accepted the endless
barrage of Putin-worshiping propaganda put out by sellouts in the alternative media, and they
have not bothered to look into things for themselves. If you are one of these people, take a
moment to set down emotionally-held beliefs and open your mind.
1. Russia, unlike the U.S, is building a lot of civilian industries and Putin recently
asked his military factories to adjust to other civilian industries and requirements- The U.S
is going in the opposite direction.
2. This is already happening- other countries have seen how loyal Russia has been to their
promises to the Assad government. The U.S turns on a dime as is convenient in any given
week.
3. To the frustration of the axis of evil (US-Saudi-Occupied Palestine) this has been
Russians biggest success to date.
I have always wondered why the world that is being sanctioned does not hack and attack the
US financial system more. Maybe just a matter of time. You cant tell me that Malta, The
Caymans, Panama and others are not vulnerable!
That's coming. First they had to build their own system. Destroying the Anglo-American
financial system without an alternative is like cutting off your air supply while 200 feet
underwater.
Yes, indeed. Why WOULDN'T the Iraqis seek relations with ANY country outside the sphere of
their destroyers to bond with? The Iraqi people, though "primitive" by our standards, are
still human beings with as much right to grow, develop and live as we zombies of Zionism in
the once noble West. We, of course, will be propagandized to the contrary. They will be shown
as "terrorists" or "Russiaphiles" if they dare to resist the mantle of tyranny imposed on
them by the Israeli/U.S. forces.
If USA imposes sanctions on too many countries, then USA will end up sanctioning
itself.
Iraq is now producing close to 5 million barrels of oil a day, most of which is for
export. If USA sanctions this oil production and sale, then some countries will need to
choose between paying sky high prices for oil, or pay for Iraqi oil in alternative currencies
and ignore US sanctions.
5 million barrels of oil a day even Saudi Arabia doesn't have the capacity to replace.
And if alternative currencies become popular for buying and selling oil, then US ability
to run trade deficits and budget deficits will be curtailed by declining US dollar and higher
interest rates for borrowing in US dollars in international markets.
It has been a bad few days for the establishment, really bad.
In a 51-49 vote, the Senate refused to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald
Trump and agreed to end the trial Wednesday, with a near-certain majority vote to acquit the
president of all charges.
As weekend polls show socialist Bernie Sanders surging into the lead for the nomination in
the states of Iowa, New Hampshire and California, the sense of panic among Democratic Party
elites is palpable.
Former Secretary of State and Joe Biden surrogate John Kerry was overheard Sunday at a Des
Moines hotel talking of the "possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party --
down whole."
Tuesday, Trump takes his nationally televised victory lap in the U.S. Capitol with his State
of the Union address, as triumphant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker
Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him.
Democrats may declare the Trump impeachment a victory for righteousness, but the anger and
outrage, the moans and groans now coming off the editorial and op-ed pages and cable TV suggest
the media know otherwise.
History, we are told, will vindicate what Pelosi and the Democrats did and stain forever the
Republican Party for voting to acquit.
Perhaps, but only if some future Howard Zinn is writing the history.
Reality: The impeachment of Trump was an attempted -- and failed -- coup that not a single
Republican supported, only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus. The impeachment of
Trump was an exercise in pure partisanship and itself an abuse of power.
What was the heart of the Democrats' case to remove Trump?
Trump failed to invite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to the White House, and held
up military aid to Kyiv for several months, to get Zelenskiy to hold a press conference to
announce that Kyiv was looking into how Hunter Biden got on the board of a corrupt energy
company at a retainer of $83,000 a month while his father was the chief international monitor
of corruption in Ukraine.
The specific indictment: Trump's suspension of military aid imperiled "our national
security" by denying arms to an "ally" who was fighting the Russians over there, so we don't
have to fight them over here.
And what was the outcome of it all?
Zelenskiy got his meeting with the president. He got the military aid in September. He did
not hold the press conference requested. He did not announce an investigation of the
Bidens.
No harm, no foul.
How did President Obama handle Ukraine?
After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and intervened to protect pro-Russian secessionists in
the Donbass, Obama's White House restricted U.S. lethal military aid to Kyiv and provided
blankets and meals ready to eat.
What punishment did House and Senate Democrats and anti-Trump media demand for the pause in
sending weapons for Ukraine?
Capital punishment, a political death penalty.
Democrats demanded that a Republican Senate overturn the election of 2016, make Trump the
first president ever impeached and removed, and then ensure that the American people could
never vote for him again.
Nancy Pelosi's House and the Democratic minority in the Senate were demanding that a
Republican Senate do their dirty work and keep Trump off the ballot in 2020, lest he win a
second term.
For four years, elements of the liberal establishment -- in the media, "deep state" and
major institutions -- have sought to destroy Trump. First, they aimed to smear him and prevent
his election, and then to overturn it as having been orchestrated by the Kremlin, and then to
impeach and remove him, and then to block him from running again.
The damage they have inflicted upon our country's institutions is serious.
U.S. intelligence agencies are being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their
role in instigating an investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign. The FBI has been
discredited by exposure of a conspiracy of top-level agents to spy on Trump's campaign.
The media, by endlessly echoing unproven claims that Trump was a stooge of the Kremlin,
discredited themselves to a degree unknown since the "Yellow Press" prostituted itself to get
us into war with Spain. Media claims to be unbiased pursuers of truth have suffered, not only
from Trump's attacks, but from their own biased and bigoted coverage and commentary.
Always at least a dribble of Beltway, uniparty propaganda that Russia is "our" enemy ruled by
a dictator, etc: "After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea .." Can this columnist not acknowledge
that the people of Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine after Uncle Sam helped stage a coup
and handpicked its new figurehead? He is still on record espousing the claim that Russia
"hacked" the 2016 U.S. election.
Anyone who believes that people above the level of sacrificial flunky "being investigated
by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their role in instigating an investigation of a U.S.
presidential campaign" will be charged with a felony is dreaming.
Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to whitewash the
imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep to vote in the next Most Important Election
Ever.
Ooh, lookie lookie, Trump is being impeached! Cheer the noble Democrats striking a blow
for freedom and virtue! Or boo the corrupt Democrats for putting on this farce! Take your
pick.
But whatever you do, don't pay any attention to the ongoing third-world invasion on our
southern border, or the trillions we are wasting on pointless winless foreign wars, or the
tens of trillions (that's not a mis-print) we are wasting bailing out and subsidizing Wall
Street and financial engineering, don't pay any attention to the fact that most of our drugs
are now made in Communist China with very little quality control, and yet prices for these
same drugs in the US are skyrocketing. And don't get me started on the growing industry of
"Surprise Medical Billing." I could go on but you get the idea.
Yes, impeachment was a bad joke. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Mr. Buchanan continues in his refusal to mention that the Maidan Revolution in the Ukraine
was a color revolution backed by the Obama-era State Department, the CIA and various
Soros-affiliated NGOs. But he dutifully invokes the Russian annexation of Crimea while never
mentioning the fact that it followed a referendum on the issue which was supported by the
vast majority in Crimea.
"Reality: The impeachment of Trump was an attempted -- and failed -- coup that not a single
Republican supported, only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus. The impeachment of
Trump was an exercise in pure partisanship and itself an abuse of power."
Reality–Mr. Buchanan is still smarting from his boss Nixon getting busted, and will
stoop to new lows to exonerate him and others on the same trajectory. Of course, impeachment
is not a coup, and the Democrats made a strong case. It is other than surprising in an
election year where Trump threatened to burn any Republican Senator to the ground that they
are "united".
It is laughable that there was this "perfect call", yet he stonewalled any and all efforts
to enable witnesses to come forward. Why not have the Bidens, Guiliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and
everyone associated to this scandal be allowed to speak their minds in the Senate? What is
the GOP so afraid of?
Several questions remain:
Why did Trump task Giuliani, in a personal capacity, to press Ukraine on the Bidens rather
than Trump asking the Department of Justice to investigate? Why were several key
administration officials "in the dark" about the activities of Giuliani?
Why did one Trump lawyer say to Senators that the House never authorized a resolution
(when it did) for subpoenas of Trump officials, when that same lawyer stated in 2019 that
resolution was unnecessary since they would testify on their own behalf?
White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo and then walked it
back. Could he testify as to explain why? Why not allow other Trump officials to testify as
witnesses to exonerate Trump?
Trump stated he is concerned about adult children benefiting from their father's name? Why
did he give his children a place in his administration?
Trump's lawyers argued that in order to convict him, the Senate must find him guilty
"beyond a reasonable doubt". Except that has never been the standard ever used in past
impeachment trial. Why would they make this claim?
Time for a senate investigation into Joe Biden's blatant corruption and abuse of power in the
Burisma matter. There has already been a shitload of evidence gathered by Ukraine prosecutors
and a French journalist and it all points to Joe actually being guilty of everything the Dems
charged Trump with. Subpoena all of it plus sworn testimony from Joe and Hunter themselves
(though they will both have to take the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination).
@Truth3
You'd think at 82 and presumably secure financially Pat would let 'er rip once in a while,
but he had bigger stones three decades ago when he had a mainstream career in middle age to
protect. I met him a couple of times in the '80s, and the pugnacious brawler image he liked
to project -- back then, at least -- is not what comes across in person. He was a little
reserved and diffident (maybe it was the company). Nothing wrong with that, of course, but
you didn't sense a zest for engaging and confronting.
All the coup members should be arrested and tried for treason. Including those working at the
corporate news networks who cheered this on.
Also, the Democratic party will cease to be a viable national party by 2030. (ok, it
really should be 2032, because that will be the first presidential election they will not be
viable, but I'll stick with 2030).
Why? Simple: a political party based on a coalition solely devoted to hating the other
side won't work. Political parties, unlike wartime militaries, need a constructive agenda to
unite behind. Meaning the party must want to do certain things when in power that everyone in
the party agrees on, not merely to trample on their political opponents
Ironically, that's why Bernie's going so well: he's got a constructive agenda. Yes,
socialism is evil, but all the other candidates merely say the same flavor of "defeating
Trump is paramount." Socialism is at least something to implement beyond recriminations
against whitey.
@Corvinus
lmao. Our personal paid media-matters troll, Corvinus, is desperately trying to spin his
conspiracy theory hoax again. Go, Corvinus, go, earn Mr. Soros's paycheck you maginificent
lying bastard!
@Anonymous
"Subpoena all of it plus sworn testimony from Joe and Hunter themselves (though they will
both have to take the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination)."
Then charge them with Obstruction Of Congress. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when
someone exercises their rights?
@gsjackson
Remember this is the guy that was attacked on stage by Jewish thug-wannabees the day he
announced his Presidential Campaign and he bounced them off the stage solo.
He knows the Elephant with the hooked nose well enough is he still afraid of Mossad?
It makes me wonder. Even though Jews are over-represented in elite institutions, the great
majority of Deep State is still made up of goyim. Then, why are they all so servile to Jewish
agendas and Jewish wishes? Do goyim lack a mind of their own? If Jews say 'gay marriage',
deep state goyim run to fetch the stick. When Jews 'more Wars for Israel', deep state goyim
roll over. If Jews say, 'bail out Wall Street', deep state goyim just go along. If Jews say,
"fuc* the first and second amendments", deep state goyim nod along. Look at cuck goyim in
Virginia grabbing guns to serve their Jewish masters. If Jews say 'let's get Trump', deep
state goyim bark and bite.
It could be that deep state goyim just happen to share the same ideas and values as the
Jews. Or it could be their minds were molded by Jewish-run media and academia. Or they're
just afraid of Jewish power that, via media, blackmail, and bought off politicians, can
destroy anyone. Indeed, the sheer chutzpah of all those Jews coming out of the woodwork to
unseat an elected president.
Jewish attitude is "Powers Is Ours. All you goyim are just guests at the table."
Jews are captains of the ship. Deep State goyim must man the engines with no sense of
direction or destiny of their own.
@Corvinus
Trump is scump, and yes, he was sniffing at Hunter for political reasons. But there is no
smoking gun that he violated any law. It's all speculation.
Still, Trump did something that was unethical even though he was probing into corruption.
He did it for political reasons. After all, if Trump is concerned about corruption, he should
begin with US defense budgets.
But Dems are also full of shit. They began with the agenda, "Let's impeach Trump" and
grasped for ANYTHING to carry it out. It didn't begin with the possible violation on Trump's
part but with the desire to get Trump somehow someway. Impeach Trump was the apriori agenda
from the day he was elected.
Besides, if Trump should really be removed, it's for the murder of hero Soleimani. And
Obama should have been impeached for his war crimes. But nope. It's some fantasy about Russia
Collusion or some triviality about Hunter, another scumbag. Jewish Power pushes American
Politicians to do evil things around the world and expresses OUTRAGE only when Jews don't get
what they want.
You pretend to be a proggy, but you're just Hasbara. It's so obvious. Give it up.
@Priss
Factor Henry Ford was the last WASP to resist jew banking and finance. 100 years ago, Ole
Henry bought a newspaper dedicated to attacking the jew, and he disseminated the Elders of
Zio through all his dealerships. He also tried to prevent the jew's favorite project at the
time ..WW1. The jew stomped Ole Henry double plus good and got their war. The WASP
establishment took careful note of Ford's humiliation, and took in the jew as a junior
partner in running and looting the country. 100 years later, the jew is running government,
media, and finance ..with the WASP as a very junior partner, mostly playing the role of
useful idiot providing the cannon fodder and taxes for jew wars.
@Truth3
You and other "blame da jooz" lurkers at Unz clearly haven't spent much time around
non-Jewish White leftists as Pat obviously has. There is no great conspiracy he is trying to
avoid.
I went to a college where every single professor was doing their best to indoctrinate the
students and 90% of them were Anglo or Nordic.
For every Jewish leftist lawyer you can point at in DC there are a thousand non-Jewish
White lawyers behind the scenes.
Liberalism is a sickness that would still exist even if you got rid of the Jews. Have a
look at Deutschland if you doubt this.
Here is the kicker: The non-Jewish leftists know they are lying. It isn't some brainwash
job by the Jewz. Liberal professors and media commentators know they are lying. They think it
is all justified. In their minds we are the problem and lies or gulags are just fine if the
end is the same.
The worst leftist of all time was not Jewish and in fact sent a lot of Jews packing. His
name was Stalin, maybe you have heard of him.
@Truth3
But that get-out is a bit easy. It's like ghetto denizens complaining about "the man".
Yes, philosophical high ground, media high ground, rent-a-mob management ground and
self-unaware ability to act decisively and shamelessly has been taken. Now what? Order up a
box of Red Bull?
The sad fact is that there are REAL reasons for getting Trump's ass dragged off into the
sunset, but they involve wars and hits for you-know-who, so nobody is ever going to mention
those.
Pat Buchanan describes all the steps of a corrupt political system to remove a sitting US
President from office with bogus charges, and their handlers in the media played the
loudspeakers and an inaffable role. This gang bears the responsibility that all the major
institutions are untrustworthy. CNN leads the lying press crowd. I was not surprised hearing
that the Iowa caucus did produce any results yet. As it seems, the "right" person didn't come
out first; Joe Biden. The corrupt Democratic Party starts already at the beginning of the
primaries by rigging the election. The Dems are still suffering from the defeat of the Queen
of Darkness, Hillary Clinton, and their corrupt entourage. The Democratic Parts seems
incapable to clean out this Augean stable. The last telling example has been the charade of
impeachment. As long no Heads will roll, the Democratic Party will remain in the political
quagmire, and corruption will prevail.
What Sanders is doing is revolutionary, in the sense that he is raising enough money to run a
national campaign, and winning, without taking corporate money.
American politics is controlled by a two-party cartel, and candidates have to join the
cartel and take the corporate money to get elected, resulting in policies like high
immigration that make sense to the Chamber of Commerce but not to many voters. Sure, you can
pander to voters and then do the bidding of the Chamber, but a candidate that does more than
pander is a stronger candidate.
You could have a real populist right if you had a candidate who could generate campaign
funding solely from grass roots contributions and refused to take corporate money. Granted
this is not the culture of the GOP, but the reality is that the program of the American
cartels is deeply unpopular with huge swaths of the American people, and the future belongs
to the group that can effectively carry out a hostile take-over of the organization and then,
not having to obey the corporate donors, puts in place a political program that actually
accomplishes the agenda: something like mandatory everify rather than say stupid symbolic
fights about a "wall" that never gets built, or maybe conduct a foreign policy that does not
have to have pre-approval from Sheldon Adelson.
It makes me wonder. Even though Jews are over-represented in elite institutions, the
great majority of Deep State is still made up of goyim. Then, why are they all so servile
to Jewish agendas and Jewish wishes?
Jews have lots of wealth and control the narrative. Plus the average Jew is smarter than
the average goyim.
Do goyim lack a mind of their own?
In many cases yes.
It could be that deep state goyim just happen to share the same ideas and values as the
Jews. Or it could be their minds were molded by Jewish-run media and academia.
The latter is the case.
Jews are captains of the ship. Deep State goyim must man the engines with no sense of
direction or destiny of their own.
This has happened many times in history the out come not so good for Jews.
Henry Ford was the last WASP to resist jew banking and finance.
And Henry Ford actually produced something of value. As opposed to most rich Jews who
produce financial products , which are detrimental to most goyim, but very lucrative
to Jews.
@John
Johnson"The worst leftist of all time was not Jewish and in fact sent a lot of Jews
packing. His name was Stalin, maybe you have heard of him."
No the worst leftist of all time was the creator of it all, Karl Marx, who absolutely was
Jewish. Jews like to use goy cat's paws like Stalin, Roosevelt and Bush to do their dirty
work but never forget who's behind it all.
@Johnny
SmogginsNo the worst leftist of all time was the creator of it all, Karl Marx, who
absolutely was Jewish. Jews like to use goy cat's paws like Stalin, Roosevelt and Bush to do
their dirty work but never forget who's behind it all.
Marx was half-Jewish and White egalitarian marauding predates Marxism. Napoleon and
Lincoln both believed in war for equality.
Did the Jews force Stalin to send millions to the Gulag? Was pol pot also forced by the
Jews to kill his own people? Pretty amazing that Jews were able to manipulate even Asian
leftists when there were zero Jews in those countries.
The corollary of blaming Jews for everything is that non-Jewish leftists are never
responsible for their own actions. This is amusing since behind closed doors leftist leaders
will admit certain politically incorrect truths which shows they are not Goy-drones. But
according to the Unz Blamin' Jews club they are just victims of manipulation. Poor wittle
victims that are consciously lying and would send us all to gulags if they could.
Can this columnist not acknowledge that the people of Crimea voted to secede from
Ukraine
Whose Side Is God on Now?
April 4, 2014 by Patrick J. Buchanan
In his Kremlin defense of Russia's annexation of Crimea, Vladimir Putin, even before he began
listing the battles where Russian blood had been shed on Crimean soil, spoke of an older
deeper bond.
Crimea, said Putin, "is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was
baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the
culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus."
Indicting the "Bolsheviks" who gave away Crimea to Ukraine, Putin declared, "May God
judge them."
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of
the counter-reformation against the new paganism.
Putin is plugging into some of the modern world's most powerful currents.
Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America's arrogant drive for
global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR
disintegrated.
He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a
hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
It seems to me, that in a sense, Buchanan is declaring that Putin is 'planting Russia's
flag' as the new moral center of the dying ((murdered)) Western world, with Moscow as the "
the Third Rome".
As the West descends into the moral 'sewer', Putin's Russia is returning to the ideals of
Christian virtues and traditional values.
"But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social,
moral war where Russia's role, in Putin's words, is to "prevent movement backward and
downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state."
Would that be the "chaotic darkness" and "primitive state" of mankind, before the Light
came into the world?"
In other words, Patrick Buchanan knows very well indeed who the villains are vis-a-vis
Crimea, and Russia, vs. the ((Globohomo)). And he's willing to say so, eloquently, when it
suits him to do so.
But even so, there was that vomit reflex moment when I read "writes WCF's Allan
Carlson, "Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values . "
So Pat does pepper his articles with paeans to the Globohomo vernacular of the day, I
suppose for reasons of appealing to the masses, such as they are. But if you've been reading
Pat for as long as I have, you know he's well aware of the subtle nuances behind claims of
'annexing Crimea', but this column is all about the obvious corruption on display with the
impeachment farce, and how the Democrats all gush when Obama does something corrupt, but howl
and screech when it's 'done' by Trump.
So in that context, he's simply using Crimea as an example of Democrat hypocrisy. Like
trying to impeach Trump for endeavoring to uncover the rat-hole of uber-corruption between
Obama/Hillary/Biden/Nuland – and the former regime in Ukraine.
IOW, what Trump did, (what he was actually impeached for) was the "off the reservation"
attempt to expose their uber-corruption. That he trusted the current ((regime)) in Ukraine,
and in his own deepstate, was his monumental error.
Then, there's this:
The NSC and State Department have been exposed as employing individuals with an
exaggerated view of their role in the origination and the execution of foreign policy.
Disloyalty and animosity toward the chief executive appear to permeate the upper echelons
of the "deep state."
The arrogance on display from all those diplomats, with sanctimonious outrage, at a
president that actually thinks *he's* in charge of foreign policy! 'Who does he think he
is?!, to decide when Ukraine gets their belligerent weapons to use on Putin's/Hitler's
aggressive Russia?! These decisions are all made wayyyy above that asshole's pay grade, and
we need to put him in his place!'
Not in our lifetime have the institutions of government and the establishment been held
in lower regard.
Almost all now concede we have become an us vs. them nation.
Liberal Jews, who hate Trump's guts with the searing heat of a thousand exploding suns,
vs. war mongering neocon Jews, who also hate Trump, but see in him a very pliant and useful
idiot.
@ Priss
Or they're just afraid of Jewish power that, via media, blackmail, and bought off
politicians, can destroy anyone.
Bingo
If you're a goyim in the administration, and you mumble something about how much the wars
are costing, either in untold trillions or in political capital, the dagger-eyed glowering
would be immediate from every Jew in the room. 'So, we have a little wannabe Himmler here.
He'll soon fine out what happens to Adolf wannabes, when he gets his arse handed to him, and
he's out on the streets'. Make him the first on your list.'
Everyone with two synapses to rub together, knows that all these wars are Jewish
supremacist wars of conquest. Duh. Even the war on Yemen, is a proxy war against Iran. So the
moment anyone tries to rein in the belligerence, he's going to have Hymie to pay. And that is
what this really is all about. Trump's holding back weapons from Ukraine, is seen as counter
productive to the ((greater agenda)), and so they pile on. And if the president of the United
States, can be keelhauled for a year, and impeached, for daring to obstruct the Eternal Wars
for Israel*, then how well will some lesser veck fare if he too thinks the wars are not the
greatest thing since sliced bread?
The Jews are uniform and connected on certain subjects. The Eternal Wars are one of them.
I know some liberal Jews. To this day, they seem to worship Obama, and loath Trump with
obvious distain, (clear hatred), but when it comes to the wars, they're kosher.
That's why there's perfect conformity from both isles in DC, on the need to continue the
wars. That's why both Fox news and ABCNNBCBS.. et al, are all perfectly aligned on that
particular issue. Which is why Tulsi has been 'Ron Pauled'. When it's something all Jews are
all aligned on ** , then it's unwritten, and woe be to any wrong-minded goyim, who's brave
enough to step over that particular line.
*Obama got a pass on a lot of things, because the liberal Jews gushed when he walked into
the room. Trump gets no such leeway.
** .. in reality, since first entering Congress in 1991, Sanders has compiled a lengthy
record of support for war and defense of the predatory interests of American
imperialism."
Sanders' record demonstrates what he considers "necessary wars." It also includes the NATO
air war against Serbia in 1999, launched on the pretext of stopping the imminent ethnic
cleansing of Kosovars.
In 2001, Sanders joined in a near-unanimous vote in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan.
Today -- now that the nearly twenty-year-long war is widely unpopular -- Sanders conveniently
declares that his earlier vote was a "mistake." But he has continued to endorse US wars in
the Middle East, including the US proxy war in Syria.
Sanders has also supported Israel's repeated assaults on Gaza, imperialist war crimes made
possible with the support of the United States. In a 2014 town hall meeting, Sanders shouted
down an antiwar protester who challenged his support for Israel even as it was committing
egregious crimes against the Palestinian population.
Moreover, Sanders has publicly voiced support for the use of assassinations and
"extraordinary rendition" in the so-called "war on terror." In 2015, when asked whether
anti-terrorism policies under a Sanders administration would include drones and special
forces, Sanders replied that he supported "all that and more."
I'm amazed Pat even posts here when half of you guys couldn't analyze the contents of a
turkey sandwich without some screed about Jews.
Jews are depicted as some monolithic bloc and yet Israel would undoubtedly take Trump over
Sanders.
So the first Jewish president would be rejected by the world wide Jewish conspiracy? Some
conspiracy.
As a reminder the presidential candidate that actually wanted government troops to kick in
doors and take guns was an Irish Texan. But I'm sure that's somehow the fault of Jews even
though the Jewish candidate has been a moderate on guns.
In the fifth paragraph, Pat writes: "Tuesday, Trump takes his nationally televised victory
lap in the US Capitol with his SOTU address, as Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker
Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him."
I'll forgive Pat the senior moment, as he surely knows that VP Pence, not Mitch McConnell,
will be sitting next to our senile Speaker.
@Rurik
"In other words, Patrick Buchanan knows very well indeed who the villains are vis-a-vis
Crimea, and Russia, vs. the ((Globohomo)). And he's willing to say so, eloquently, when it
suits him to do so.
[I]f you've been reading Pat for as long as I have, you know he's well aware of the subtle
nuances behind claims of 'annexing Crimea', "
Please. Just run "Crimea" in the search engine against Mr. Buchanan's columns. -- >
11/22/2019: " .. 2014, when Vladimir Putin's Russia seized Crimea .." What's subtle or
nuanced about "seized"? Do I need to show you some of his other Beltway bits, like his
standing assertion that Russia "hacked" the 2016 US election?
I repeat: Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to
whitewash the imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep (like you?) to vote in the next Most
Important Election Ever.
Refute it, or admit it. Neither should require another 1,300 words.
Jews are depicted as some monolithic bloc and yet Israel would undoubtedly take Trump
over Sanders.
in the comment right above this one, I just wrote
"Liberal Jews, who hate Trump's guts with the searing heat of a thousand exploding
suns, vs. war mongering neocon Jews, who also hate Trump, but see in him a very pliant and
useful idiot."
Jews don't control everything. But when it comes to N. America's foreign policy, you'd
have to be a huge knucklehead not to know of AIPAC, CFR, and PNAC, and all the other Jewish
supremacist institutions herding our congress-critters like so many sheep, to their Eternal
Wars for Israel.
Or ,
..you can explain how its in the American people's interest to spend seven+ trillion, (all
of it borrowed at interest) to slaughter, main and displace millions of innocent people, who
just happen to be inconvenient to Israel's imperial ambitions. While simultaneously getting
tens of thousands of young American soldiers dead, maimed or so soul-shattered they're
committing suicide at some 20 a day?
Or, would you really have us all believe, that Saddam did 9/11, and that he and Gadhafi
had WMD, because they "hate our freedom", and so we have to "fight them over there, so we
don't have to fight them over here"
?
@John
Johnson But for the Jews who controlled the Communist party in the Soviet Union grooming
and promoting him, Stalin would've been a minor tyrant terrorizing the peasantry in the
Georgian countryside. Unfortunately for them, their pet got out of control and started to
bite the hand that fed him. The corollary to this is Jews in the US promoting "civil rights"
and then having some of their negro pets (like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) turn on them.
Remind us friend, where the idea for Marxism came to Asians from? The answer of course is
from the Jew Marx with financing provided by Jacob Schiff and other wealthy Jews. Perhaps Pol
Pot may have found some other outlet for his murderous instincts but as has been the case in
so many instances around the world, it was Jewish Marxism that not only lit the fuse, but set
it up to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, do gooder Christian types are nearly as much to blame for the mess
we're in as the Jews. The difference is that while Christians are naive, gullible and stupid,
their motivations are essentially good even if the outcome is bad. With Jews, the motivation
behind what they do is pure malice.
You seem new here. Welcome. Do some more reading and exploring and then comment more.
You're not the first newbie to wander in from Breitbart ready to defend Israel and the Jews
without first having educated himself, and you won't be the last.
Do I need to show you some of his other Beltway bits, like his standing assertion that
Russia "hacked" the 2016 US election?
from my little screed
"So Pat does pepper his articles with paeans to the Globohomo vernacular of the day, I
suppose for reasons of appealing to the masses, such as they are."
Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to whitewash
the imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep (like you?) to vote in the next Most Important
Election Ever.
Refute it, or admit it.
I admit it!
HAHAHAAAAHAAA!!!
I'm actually a Trump supporter because, that's right! I'm a racist!!!
HAHAHAAAHAAAA!
That's why we're all pretending that the Dems are actuyally way worse than Trump when it
comes to the Eternal Wars, because we all secretly love Trump, because he called Mexicans
'bad hombres!! And he said Obama wasn't born here, and we all love that kind of
RACISM!
HAHAHAAAAA!!!!
When ever he mocks Maxine Waters, we all laugh at how racist we all are, and that's why
Pat and the Deplorables and all of us closet racists are going to pull the lever for
Trump!
Because we're racists!! And we don't even worship Obama!! the One!!!
HAHAHAAAHAAAA!!!!
White supremacy, baby!!!
HAHAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!
You're going to get four more years of Orange clown racism! He grabs fulsomely offered
gold-digger's pussies like crazy, and we don't even care!!!
We even like, that he likes women, and isn't even gay!!
HAHAHAAAA
I was just talking to a buddy of mine, and we were lamenting some of Trump's more
egregious disappointments, (assassinating world leaders, tossing Bibi's salad, etc..). But
there was one thing about which we could agree, as bad as Trump is, (and he's a disaster), we
are very much going to enjoy the show, as Hillary and Madow and Maxine and all the other
white-male-castrating hags and losers and SJW POS, will be soul-raped on election day.
That, might go a long way towards mollifying Trump's disastrous presidency.
Sometimes I watch those videos of the reaction to the 2016 election, and the tears, and
howls of existential angst, from Hillary supporters, and boy oh boy are those memories
great.
@RurikJews don't control everything. But when it comes to N. America's foreign policy, you'd
have to be a huge knucklehead not to know of AIPAC, CFR, and PNAC
Zomg Jewish lobbies. You can actually be against aid to Israel while not taking the view
that Jews control every single war and leftist action. Not everything has to be about the
Jews.
Or, would you really have us all believe, that Saddam did 9/11, and that he and Gadhafi
had WMD, because they "hate our freedom", and so we have to "fight them over there, so we
don't have to fight them over here"
What would make you think that I believe Saddam did 9/11? I have said nothing of the
sort.
It's actually possible to be against foreign wars and also against blaming the Jews for
everything. Anglo leaders have started foreign wars without the influence of Jews. If that
angry Austrian didn't start a needless war with Poland we wouldn't be in the mess we are in
today. Then he went and made his great dunderheaded move of attacking Russia before defeating
Britain. Did the Jews make him do it while they were in boxcars? The Romans started all kinds
of needless foreign wars without Jewish influence. But if a US president does it then MUST BE
the Jews. Nevermind that GWB talked about wanting to get even with Saddam or that Cheney had
all sorts of war industry connections. Just blame Jews, it's the Unz way. Thank you Mr.
Jewish Unz for providing this forum.
Disagree w/ Buchanan's key premise: the coup leaders, as Rick Wiles identified them, the Jew
Coup, got everything they wanted and still have tethers in place to force more from Trump, in
the fullness of time.
-- Give us Golan or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Give us Jewish capital in Jerusalem or we will unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Convey gas rights in Golan to Cheney, other Jewish and American interests or we'll
unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Kill Soleimani or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Give us full sovereignty and political cover to take all of ersatz Israel, Palestinians
be damned, or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Ensure that Syria remains fragmented and without financing to rebuild or we'll unleash
"six ways til Sunday"
--
By the way: those of you familiar with gematria or Kabbalah -- remember Schiff's "parody" of
the Trump phone call? Among its other weird references that, I suspect, were not without
esoteric meaning, Schiff repeated the number seven. Does that mean anything?
IMHO, the outcome -- 'acquittal' in the Senate -- is just as pre-ordained by Schiff-Nadler
– Engel – Schumer, as was the No vote on witnesses: Dems are just as dirty as
GOP; they'd have been pissing in their Guccis if Republicans had voted to call more witnesses
who might have implicated Democrats in corruption.
AGREE that Pelosi has been humiliated: nothing Jew Coupers like better than using, then
humiliating a Catholic; that she is Italian (Roman) is cream cheese on the bagels.
@Johnny
SmogginsBut for the Jews who controlled the Communist party in the Soviet Union
grooming and promoting him, Stalin would've been a minor tyrant terrorizing the peasantry in
the Georgian countryside.
Where does Lenin fall into this revisionist history? He had nothing to do with the rise of
Stalin? Why didn't the Jews rally around Trotsky, an actual Jew?
Anyways the Jews dominated the NKVD, not the central party. They executed anyone including
Jews. Their top leaders were eventually executed by Stalin to cover up his crimes. Their
hegemony in the NKVD was eventually broken but the "Jewish USSR" myth remained for
decades.
Remind us friend, where the idea for Marxism came to Asians from? The answer of course
is from the Jew Marx with financing provided by Jacob Schiff and other wealthy Jews.
This is exactly the irrational thinking that I am talking about. If some Asian dictator
kills a million people you actually blame a half-Jew's Communist book even though said book
never called for killing a million people. Total removal of responsibility. You are giving a
free pass to any blood thirsty leftist.
Don't get me wrong, do gooder Christian types are nearly as much to blame for the mess
we're in as the Jews. The difference is that while Christians are naive, gullible and stupid,
their motivations are essentially good even if the outcome is bad.
This shows you don't even understand leftiest leadership in the US or EU. They are mostly
secular, not Christian. They are not manipulated children. They know exactly what they are
doing and fully intend to
transform the US into Brazil.
Whites like Edwards and Beto are not the pawns of some Jewish indoctrination project. They
know full well that they are lying to the public. Nothing on this website would surprise
them. You could tell them all about Jewish lobbies or Jews in the NKVD and they wouldn't
care. Leftists have an egalitarian vision and don't care about what you have to say.
@John
Johnson Can we agree that a person needn't actually be a believer himself to carry the
ideals that the religion espoused?
Marx may have never worn a yarmulke or even believed in God but that doesn't mean that his
actions, perhaps unconsciously, weren't rooted in Jewish ideals. And every single SJW, even
the most stridently atheist, is animated by Christian ideals about making the world a better
place.
Bottom line – Whites are in the sorry state we're in because of both Jews and
Christians but Jews were, and are, motivated by a poisonous hatred of Whites. We'll have to
deal with dumb Christians and SJWs on our own, we don't need Jews with all their money, power
and hate helping them.
You're right though; Before we can tackle the Jewish problem we have to clean our own
house first.
Actually the Establishment is doing fine: the government employs more people, spends more
money, and exerts more influence than ever, while big tech censors legitimate
opposition/dissent.
It's the American people who are screwed by being chained to this freak show by the
coercive tax system, especially when it's obvious voting makes no difference.
"Already, the odds of a modern 30-50-year-old dying from suicide, alcohol, or drugs in
America are 10 times as high as the odds an 18-35-year-old in 1960 had of dying in
Vietnam." https://t.co/RrudZ1cvwX
@Corvinus
Maybe you should contact Gordon Duff over at VT. He'd probably hire you in a New York minute.
It seems that you don't even have the decency to admit that the Impeachment was nothing but a
Deep State orchestrated circus or more accurately farce actually unbelievably promoting the
NeoNazi State of Ukraine as our "ally" who were fighting the evil Rooskies on our behalf.
Number one. Why would it be in the interest of the American people to get involved in a
proxy war with Russia? A nation that happens to have more nukes and a more effective and
deadlier method of delivering them than we do. According to military analysts we are at least
two decades behind them.
Next even if Russia was a valid target. They are not attacking Russia they are attacking
Dombass, dumb ass which happens to be a breakaway region of Ukraine.
Two. Talk about being low life sniffling scum they embrace John Bolton the epitome of
Neocon subversion as an "ally". Just shows how low the establishment demoncrats have sank
proving that they have no moral compass whatsoever and like the CIA the ends justify the
means.
What you and the DemonCrats have shown is that you aren't any better than Trumpenstein but
probably in many ways far worse.
@Corvinus
Hey Corvinus,
The Democrats swung and missed. It was a Hail Mary effort that was bound to fail but their
blind hatred of Trump would not allow them to see the inevitable outcome. The Democrats
simply can't accept that their annotated one (Hillary) was just not Presidential timber, but
many voting Americans could see it. You lost in 2016 and you will lose the Presidency in
2020, almost certainly. If you lose the house too that will simply be the icing on the cake.
Democrats will then be relegated to the sidelines and will be able to do nothing but squall
impotently from the dark spaces they all inhabit. I await your lamenting and gnashing of
teeth after Nov.
The Democratic party may be done for a decade because of this. Their continued actions
have damaged themselves and strengthened Trump but their denial does not allow them to see
it.
Democrats are like the tranny males they claim to espouse. When they look in the mirror
the reflection they see is that of a beautiful girl. But in reality all they are is just a
bunch of dicks.
@Johnny
SmogginsAnd every single SJW, even the most stridently atheist, is animated by
Christian ideals about making the world a better place.
Bottom line – Whites are in the sorry state we're in because of both Jews and
Christians but Jews were, and are, motivated by a poisonous hatred of Whites. We'll have to
deal with dumb Christians and SJWs on our own, we don't need Jews with all their money, power
and hate helping them.
I don't actually believe this is the case and I'm not trying to be argumentative.
If Christianity is the underlying problem then European countries with greater declines in
Christianity should see less support for liberalism. Children raised in secular households
should be less like to be liberal.
This hasn't happened and in fact the opposite is true. Sweden is very secular and very
leftist. Children raised in secular homes are far more likely to be liberal. The data is
clear on this.
We aren't dealing with Christianity or some pseudo form. We are dealing with a new
egalitarian religion called liberalism. The leaders are secular are fully conscious of what
they are doing. If anything Christianity in the right form can provide a layer of
inoculation.
So no I don't think blaming Jews or Christians is valid or helpful.
@Corvinus
Hey. Some Democrat candidates got what they wanted. Old Joe Biden barely survived Iowa, which
was not unintended collateral damage, but rather very intended and targeted. I can imagine
Elizabeth Warren's fingerprints all over this one.
We will see in November exactly who was too clever by half.
@John
Johnson "This hasn't happened and in fact the opposite is true. Sweden is very secular
and very leftist" Sweden is not as 'leftist' as often portrayed. In the last election the
Social Democrats fell to their lowest vote share in over 100 years. They were reduced to only
100 seats in the Riksdag (less than a 1/3)& formed a minority coalition govt. with the
Greens & Commies comprising only 144 seats. The centrist Alliance coalition picked up 143
seats & the rising stars – the right-wing Sweden Democrats, rose to 62 seats. The
coalition was slightly revamped after an early vote of no-confidence but the Social Democrats
are waning & the centrist & right-wing Parties are gaining. The most recent polls in
the country show the Sweden Democrats actually running ahead of the Social Democrats now,
making it the most popular Party in the country at this time. Most of those "Johnson's"
aren't very leftist anymore. But this still doesn't detract from the fact that Christianity
is NOT the problem. After all, our greatest living pundit, Pat Buchanan, is Christian &
he's no raving, leftist loony.
Like a coup really matters when Trump has turned into either Jeb Bush or Lindsey Grahamnesty
without the lisp and the drawl. Trump has become orange Jebulus. He's not the Donald Trump I
voted for in 2016. The Potomoc fever bug finally bit him.
At Trump's State of the Zionist Union speech (SOTZU) he received raucous applause and
shouts of "four more years" from the Republican side of the chamber. Most of these people
used to oppose him but now that Trump has sold out to the deep state (if he ever really
opposed it in the first place), especially on foreign policy, they love him and have accepted
him as one of their own.
@SolontoCroesus
Not to worry, Pelosi got her revenge last night when she churlishly tore up her copy of
Trump's SOTU address right after he was done speaking. What a classless little tramp that
woman is.
Is it not true, though, that the three biggest Jewish plotters in Congress (Schiff,
Nadler, and Schumer) have been equally humiliated?
Hillary Clinton, Nany Pelosi and her likes have poisoned deaply the democratic party without
any chance of cure soon.
Revenge for their humiliation has been the engine behind the Muller trial and the impeachment
circus.
They failed dramatically and now the DNC is not only more humiliated but it has lost the
little credibility it still had.
Only an old fashioned democrat leader can bring back confidence in the democratic ideology
that has been lost by Hillary and Cie. It seems too late for this to happen and Trump will be
back . As it is expected that the economy in the US may enter into a recession in the second
term, why taking away from him the humiliation he will face?
@swampedSweden Democrats actually running ahead of the Social Democrats now, making it the most
popular Party in the country at this time. Most of those "Johnson's" aren't very leftist
anymore. But this still doesn't detract from the fact that Christianity is NOT the
problem.
They have around 20% of the vote which is significant but the majority still buys into
mainstream leftist BS.
After all, our greatest living pundit, Pat Buchanan, is Christian & he's no raving,
leftist loony.
Good point and quite ironic that we have someone here blaming Christians when PB is a
stalworth against the left. Some of the strongest anti-left parties in Europe are in Eastern
Europe where support for the church is strong. The belief that secularism undermines
liberalism simply doesn't match the data. If anything it seems that secular Whites double
down on liberalism because they don't have a religion.
It is Feb 5th and teh US Senate has absolve the President, thus ending 4yrs of endless
Conspiracies, coups and impeachments. Trump has emerge victorious and single handedly destroy
the DEMs party , this in spite of the Fake news establishment, the deepstate and people
within his own innercircle. Trump with the support of the American Deplorables have defeated
the DEM/LEFT/Antifa continues attacks. BUT it seems that the GOP does NOT understand, realize
the golden historical unprecendentes opportunity to REnake the party, rolled back the Great
BLUE wave that never was. The GOP is poised to recover the House, turn the Blue states RED
again. IF the GOP does NOT keep this momentum going, if they break their inner discipline, or
the GOP makes the ILL mistake to sabotage Trump the GOP will go back to playing second fiddle
to the DEMs and will probably lose their best chance to REmake, REimagine, REorganize,
REdefine REunite the GOP and the Conervative movement in America Trumpism is on the March..
@Crazy
Horse "It seems that you don't even have the decency to admit that the Impeachment was
nothing but a Deep State orchestrated circus or more accurately farce actually unbelievably
promoting the NeoNazi State of Ukraine as our "ally" who were fighting the evil Rooskies on
our behalf."
Why are you spreading Fake News?
"Why would it be in the interest of the American people to get involved in a proxy war
with Russia?"
I never directly nor indirectly made any comment about this situation. Pray tell, are you
a Russian troll?
"Talk about being low life sniffling scum they embrace John Bolton the epitome of Neocon
subversion as an "ally"."
Why not let him, the Bidens, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Guiliani, and Parnas have the opportunity
to speak before the Senate if it was the "perfect call"? What does Trump have to hide?
Furthermore, do you support any president digging up dirt on a political rival while in
office by way of a proxy?
Actually, democracy swung and missed. But there are over two dozen investigations taking
place relating to Trump and his associates, and more information will be coming about the
Ukraine fiasco.
"The Democrats simply can't accept that their annotated one (Hillary) was just not
Presidential timber, but many voting Americans could see it."
Actually, she won the popular vote. But I do agree that she was, along with Trump, not
"presidential timber".
"You lost in 2016 and you will lose the Presidency in 2020 "
I didn't run. Moreover, I'm an educated white married man who makes his own decisions
about politics, race, and culture. You?
What this impeachment hoax so rawly exposes is that the politicians who brought on the
impeachment and voted in favor of it (and that includes Romney) think very little, in fact,
nothing about what Joe Biden and his son did. They think it was perfectly OK. What that
should tell everyone is that they too would do (if they haven't already) the same thing given
the opportunity as Congressmen, Senators, a Vice President, or President. They would fill
their pockets and the pockets of their families given the same opportunity. People should
reflect on that next time these people run for office.
@Corvinus
Russian troll? My question is are you a moron? You don't have to answer because the question
is rhetorical.
Seems anyone who disagrees with dipshits like you must be "agents of Putin Inc". McCarthy
would be sooo proud of brain dead assholes like you and to answer your question. NO!
@Virgile
They lost whatever credibility they had by rigging the primary and accusing anyone that
disagreed with the Queen of the Damned that they must be a Russian Troll or Agent. Corvinus
perfectly epitomizes this idiocy.
@Corvinus
"Won" the popular vote is a consolation prize in a presidential election. Besides that's
questionable due to the fact she "won" 1) in states that used Soros owned Smartmatic Voting
Machines 2) reported votes that far exceeded the number eligible voters registered. For
instance LA County reported that 145% of eligible voters "voted" in the last general
election.
"includes Romney) think very little, in fact, nothing about what Joe Biden and his
son did."
Anastasia, it's not disputed that Romney has a least one close associate who worked with
Hunter, but actually in the Ukraine, at Burisma; but I don't believe that's Romney's angle
here.
I think Romney is setting up to run 3rd party for President. Of course the objective will
not be to become the next president: it will be to take out Trump, and make possible a
Bloomberg victory. I would guess Romney will hold off announcement as long as possible to
ensure maximum chaos. Doesn't even need to make all the state ballots to achieve
"victory".
"... About the Dem Party: It is a [neo[Liberal Cult, deeply flawed psycho-socially as any cult is. They are at the terminal phase, ready to take down their own people into the abyss. Suicidal. Physically ready to bleed out millions of people in civil war. ..."
"... Involved in all this corruption were players within the CIA, State Dept, NSC, FBI and all the other Intel agencies needed to cover the crimes. The Clinton-Obama administration had scores of corrupt officials and associates (the Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to create a firewall once Trump won the nomination. As so, they attacked his campaign manager, his national security adviser, his family, himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably Mossad. ..."
About the Dem Party: It is a [neo[Liberal Cult, deeply flawed psycho-socially as any cult
is. They are at the terminal phase, ready to take down their own people into the abyss.
Suicidal. Physically ready to bleed out millions of people in civil war.
Layered under the globalism, and progressive extremism is a many-generational fanatic
Russophobia.
And this is where the nexus of Ukraine comes into play with the corrupt elites of the
Party. They have sucked off the $5billion + "invested" in programming the Ukie hatred of
Russia. This has led to the need to cover up their corruption which the Trump Presidency
would eventually expose.
So, they projected onto Trump and his associates all their crimes in Ukraine.
Involved in all this corruption were players within the CIA, State Dept, NSC, FBI and
all the other Intel agencies needed to cover the crimes. The Clinton-Obama administration had
scores of corrupt officials and associates (the Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to
create a firewall once Trump won the nomination. As so, they attacked his campaign manager,
his national security adviser, his family, himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping
done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably Mossad.
The rest has played out, all futile attempts to coup the Presidency.
The Dems now will "kill off" one another, a political savaging in a desperate attempt to
get the White House.
As a Cult they will do what cults always do. The ideology, layered deep with fanaticism,
demands death as its ritual, but, unable to get Trump, it will turn on one another.
After they lose again in November, they will unleash their street thugs, Antifa, to
terrorize the winners. Meanwhile for the purists of the Liberal Cult there will be many real
suicides. So, bloodshed and death will become reality.
Feb 6, 2020
46Democrats impeached Trump for withholding arms to Neo-NazisKit Knightly Max Parry
Please note flags of the Azov Battalion, centre, NATO left, and Nazi, right. As this
article was going to press, it was formally confirmed – as was long expected – that
the Senate had found Donald Trump not guilty of both abuse of power and obstruction of
congress. – Ed
On December 18th, Donald Trump became the third U.S. president in history to be impeached by
the House of Representatives. The second to be indicted before completing a first term, the
45th commander-in-chief must now survive a Senate trial before seeking reelection later this
year.
As many nonpartisan analysts predicted, the charges appear to have only improved his chances
with the electorate as
his approval rating saw an uptick after the articles were approved on grounds of
"obstruction of Congress and abuse of power."
After dragging the country through three years of Russiagate which never panned out, the
Democrats appear to be scoring yet another own goal. Even a near brush with war against Iran
does not seem to have impacted Trump's favorability, which could have been seen as a reversal
of his campaign pledges to end America's forever wars that were arguably a significant factor
in his unlikely victory.
It was Trump's rhetoric as a peace candidate suggesting rapprochement with Russia which made
him a target of the political establishment and intelligence community, who subsequently blamed
his shocking win on still-unproven allegations of election interference by the Kremlin.
Since he took office, Trump has done nearly everything short of declaring war on Moscow to
appease the bipartisan anti-Russia consensus in Washington but to no avail. One such step was
the decision to provide military aid to Ukraine amid its ongoing war in the eastern Donbass
region against Russian-speaking separatists, a move the Obama administration decided against
because of Kiev's rampant corruption.
Trump's predecessor tapped his Vice President, Joe Biden, to head up an anti-corruption
drive in Ukraine who instead used the opportunity to personally enrich his family by landing
his son, Hunter, a job on the executive board of the country's largest private gas company,
Burisma Holdings.
Biden led the U.S. role in the 2014 coup d'etat in Ukraine which overthrew the
democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovych after he turned down a European Union
Association Agreement for an economic bail-out from Russia that was the flashpoint for the
subsequent Donbass war.
Contrary to the Trump-Russia 'collusion' narrative, one figure who tried to lobby Yanukovych
into signing the pro-austerity treaty was none other than Paul Manafort, the future Trump
campaign manager indicted during the Russia probe for failing to register as a foreign agent
while consulting for the deposed Ukrainian president.
Manafort's influence went against Russian interests in favor of the EU and was years before
Trump was ever a candidate, but this did not stop the Democrats from later misconstruing it as
evidence he was a backchannel to the Kremlin. Meanwhile, Biden's hand in the junta was revealed
in
an infamous leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
Nuland, who is the wife of leading neoconservative figure Robert Kagan, also spilled the beans that the U.S.
invested as much as $5 billion dollars on regime change in Kiev when we were led to believe the
Maidan was a spontaneous, popular revolt.
Shortly after the putsch, Hunter Biden joined the board of directors at Burisma despite
having no experience in Ukraine or the energy sector.
The embattled fracking company was founded by a notorious oligarch and corrupt minister from
the Yanukovych era, Mykola Zlochevsky, yet who unlike the former did not have to flee to Russia
and curiously escaped prosecution in a money laundering case under the new Western-friendly
regime -- did he obtain immunity with Hunter Biden's appointment?
When the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, reportedly began to investigate the
energy firm, the elder Biden did not just blackmail the post-Maidan government of Petro
Poroshenko into sacking him by threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees but openly
bragged about it on
camera:
Incredibly, Poroshenko would replace Shokin with a former Minister of Internal Affairs,
Yuriy Lutsenko, who had previously been imprisoned for embezzlement and corruption himself.
It is still a matter of debate whether the top prosecutor was even actually looking into the
activities of Burisma, but what is not in dispute -- except to corporate media -- is the
criminal nature of Biden's conduct who clearly allowed his family to profiteer off U.S.
meddling in the country.
After he became a 2020 presidential candidate and frontrunner for the Democratic nomination,
the subject of Biden's past wrongdoing was broached by Trump last July during a phone call with
current Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky.
The controversial exchange occurred just a day after former FBI director Robert Mueller
delivered his anticlimactic testimony before congress where the lead investigator in the Russia
investigation did not appear familiar with the details of his own inquiry.
The call transcript
shows that Trump asked the newly elected Zelensky if he would assist U.S. Attorney General
William Barr in determining whether there was truth to the rumors that the infamous Democratic
National Committee (DNC) computer server given by the FBI to CrowdStrike Holdings was located
in Ukraine.
CrowdStrike was one of the cybersecurity firms hired by the DNC which questionably
determined it was Russian intelligence which perpetrated alleged cyber attacks during the 2016
election. In other words, Trump wanted to find out if it was actually Kiev which "meddled" and
framed the Kremlin.
While he did not offer Zelensky compensation, it is true Trump asked for the favor shortly
after mentioning the javelin missiles being provided to Ukraine in the military assistance.
However, Biden's extortion and the firing of Shokin is only raised later in the conversation
and whether or not either matter was contingent upon the military aid is dubious and implicit
at best.
At the time of the correspondence, Zelensky and his government were unaware that the nearly
$400 million in aid had been withheld and did not learn of it's freezing until a month later,
making any alleged 'quid pro quo' doubtful.
The ambiguity of the conversation has not prevented Democrats from surmising that the
security aid was suspended on the condition that Zelensky cooperate with Trump's requests.
While the exploits were arguably unethical, for the content of the exchange to be considered
sufficient grounds for impeachment would set a very low bar and virtually ensure any future
president can be indicted on a technicality for politicized reasons.
In the meantime, the focus has shifted to Trump's firing of former U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, because if threatening to withhold foreign aid alone qualifies,
Biden is not only guilty of the same crime but more explicitly. Forget that from a procedural
standpoint, without the required constitutional majority in the GOP-controlled Senate, the
chances of removing Trump are dead in the water anyway.
This can only mean the trial is really meant to be a smokescreen for Biden's own
palm-greasing in Ukraine while legally requiring his biggest primary rival, Senator Bernie
Sanders, to spend time away from the campaign trail in attendance.
Some of the 'aid' held up to Ukraine
Not only has the legitimate question of whether the former Vice President and his son should
also be probed been dismissed by mainstream media as a "conspiracy theory," but completely lost
in the political theater of the proceedings is if Washington ought to be providing defense
assistance and fueling a proxy war with Russia to begin with.
The Russiagate hoax successfully transformed the entirety of the Democratic Party into new
cold warriors and its Ukrainegate sequel has only continued that hawkish trajectory.
To make matters worse, Western media coverage of the scandal has omitted that many of the
militias fighting with the Ukrainian army in Donbass are far-right, neo-Nazi groups previously
instrumental in transforming the 2014 Maidan protests into violence.
One of the three main political parties which formed the opposition to Yanukovych was the
ultra-nationalist Svoboda party whose leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, personally met with Biden in 2014
despite having been
barred from entering the U.S. for his anti-semitism just a year prior.
Svoboda and its militant offshoots like the Azov regiment fighting in Donbass are the
self-proclaimed ideological progeny of the fascist collaborators led by the Ukrainian
nationalist, Stepan Bandera, who sided with Nazi Germany during its invasion of the Soviet
Union in 1941.
In the Cold War, the CIA provided covert assistance to the post-war remnants of Bandera's
faction as it waged a failed insurgency in the 1950s.
In post-Soviet Ukraine, a disturbing campaign of historical revisionism has rewritten
Bandera's fifth column as nationalist heroes who fought solely for Ukrainian independence.
This is not reflected in the historical record which shows they not only participated in the
Third Reich's war crimes but shared their racist ideology, as admitted in the CIA's
own declassified documents :
Altogether, during the 5 weeks of its existence the Bandera
"state" destroyed over 5,000 Ukrainians, 15,000 Jews, and several thousand Poles. The
"Ukrainian State" Of Stepan Bandera ended its short but ignominious existence in August 1941,
when it was announced in Lvov that Western Ukraine had been incorporated as the "District of
Galicia" in the "General Governorship" (occupied Poland). And then a "new order," Hitler style
began to be introduced in the Ukraine.
This in short, the story of Bandera's "one-day holiday," which his followers, relying on
people's forgetfulness, now try to present as a glorious and heroic page in the history of the
Ukrainian liberation movement. In reality, it would be best, especially for the supporters of a
free Ukraine, to erase from the history of their .. movement this infamous Hitlerite, fascist
episode, which brought nothing. but shame and sorrow to the Ukraine.
Despite provisions in the aid barring weapons from going to the Azov detachment, the U.S.
military has continued to
provide them with arms and training. We are already witnessing blowback for this decision
in the
case of Jarrett William Smith , an ex-Army soldier arrested by the FBI for planning to
assassinate former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke and plotting terrorist
attacks against major news networks.
Smith had made plans to travel to Ukraine to fight with the Azov battalion and had
previously volunteered in the Donbass war in 2017 with another Ukrainian neo-fascist
paramilitary, the Right Sector.
Smith reportedly
sought help in making contact with Azov from another AWOL soldier, Craig Lang, currently
under house arrest in Ukraine and wanted for extradition to the U.S. for killing a Florida
couple.
Lang, who is considered a hero in the country for serving as a private mercenary with Right
Sector, also spent time with Georgian Legion
, a unit formed by ethnic Georgians conscripted on the Ukrainian side in the War in Donbass
whose members are believed to have perpetrated the 'false flag' sniper attacks on the Maidan
that was blamed on the government of Yanukovych.
Coincidentally, just as Americans are following the impeachment, trending on the internet
streaming service Netflix is a new documentary by a pair of Israeli filmmakers that touches
upon U.S. harboring of a Ukrainian Nazi called The Devil Next Door .
The series recaps the fascinating case of John Demjanjuk, a retired autoworker and
Ukrainian-born immigrant living in Cleveland, Ohio, who is suddenly accused of being a
notoriously sadistic Nazi guard at Treblinka concentration camp in eastern Poland during World
War II known as "Ivan the Terrible" and is extradited to Israel in 1986 to face charges of war
crimes and crimes against humanity.
After impassioned but inconsistent eyewitness testimony by camp survivors, he was mistakenly
found guilty of being the mysterious guard by an Israeli court and sentenced to death until his
conviction was overturned under appeal in 1993.
Years later, Demjanjuk is identified as a different prison guard at another camp in Sobibor
and re-convicted, this time more convincingly by a German court.
He maintained until his death in 2012 that he was again a victim of mistaken identity and
during the war was a POW himself after serving in the Red Army until his capture by the Germans
who then "forced" him to work as a guard at Trawniki, but never Sobibor.
However,
newly discovered photos of Demjanjuk at the death camp were just released which contradict
his denials and increase the likelihood he was a willing defector.
The documentary sheds light on how Demjanjuk was able to gain safe harbor
in the U.S. because of amendments to the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 which restricted
immigration of those persecuted by the Nazis while giving preferential treatment to Polish and
Ukrainian nationals who hid under new aliases in refugee camps while fleeing the Soviets.
U.S. immigration services were only able to detect the entry of formal members of the Nazi
regime while their local collaborators like Demjanjuk often snuck through unnoticed.
The show also speaks briefly of the U.S. embrace of many "former" Nazis such as Wernher von
Braun and the thousands of other German scientists recruited in Operation Paperclip who
were employed by the U.S. government during the Cold War in order to gain an advantage over
Moscow in the space race.
However, the series neglects to mention the CIA's support for Stepan Bandera's Organization
of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), much less their descendants in Kiev today who are renaming
city streets after SS veterans and tearing down Soviet statues to replace them with effigies of
fascist quislings.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely viewers will make any connection between the show and the
current political scandal gripping Washington.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/J8h16g1cVak
Netflix did receive objections over The Devil Next Door from the Polish government
and its right-wing populist Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, who accused the streaming giant
of "rewriting history" in its production by using a map of the country's post-1945 borders
while implying that Poland shared culpability for Nazi war crimes that occurred in its
territory.
Much of western Ukraine became eastern Poland overnight with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and
the German occupation, one of the reasons why a native of northwestern Ukraine like Demjanjuk
ended up in the neighboring country.
Like the Banderites doctoring history in Kiev, Polish nationalists are seeking to revise the
historical record of the many Poles who collaborated with the Germans in the slaughter of their
fellow compatriots as well.
This historical negationism continued in Poland's recent row with Russia over the 75th
anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz in which Morawiecki despicably made a false
equivalency between the USSR and Nazi Germany with a disturbing reinterpretation encouraged by
the U.S. who seek to take credit for the Soviet accomplishment of freeing the concentration
camp in 1945.
Nothing is sacred to the Atlanticists who are willing to politicize anything in the name of
their geostrategy of encircling Moscow and ultimate goal of conquering Eurasia.
That the Democrats are not impeaching Trump for an actual unconstitutional offense like the
diverting of military funds to his border wall without congressional approval is revealing of
its true motivations. Trump only crossed a line when he went after another member of the
political establishment and fleetingly halted the U.S. war machine in its aggression toward
Moscow.
It is reminiscent of what some have argued were the real reasons for the impeachment of
Richard Nixon that resulted from the Watergate scandal. Similarly, Nixon was forced to resign
in 1974 after he targeted other members of the elite in the wire-tapping and break-in of the
DNC headquarters, not his use of the CIA to violate its own charter for domestic espionage on
American citizens active in the anti-war movement.
Like Trump's rhetoric toward Moscow, Nixon had also broken with foreign policy orthodoxies
both in his unprecedented restoration of diplomacy with China and détente with the
Soviet Union negotiating arms control.
The dangerous consequences of the campaign against Trump for deviating from the anti-Russia
foreign policy dogma can be seen in the unparalleled recent
NATO war games and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists pushing the hand of the
Doomsday Clock forward to just 100 seconds to midnight , its closest-ever
approach which even exceeds that of the beginning of the Cold War in the early 1950s.
Trump would never have armed Ukraine to begin with if not for the constant pressure of the
Russia investigation and the need to not appear soft on Moscow.
It is clear that the impeachment is nothing more than an inter-war between different
factions of the elite and not only has it reduced the American people to onlookers, it may get
us all killed in a nuclear holocaust in the process.
For an excellent in-depth investigation of the roots of the crisis, Revealing Ukraine, the
anticipated follow-up to the 2016 documentary Ukraine on Fire directed by Igor Lopatonok and
produced by Oliver Stone, is highly recommended.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of
I don't agree with Max about everything he asserts here. I also find some of his statements
to be unnecessarily tentative. The objective of those launching the impeachment hoax was
simply to smear Trump – to the general public. No smearing is needed among progressives
paying attention.
Antonym ,
The US Democratic Party is theoretically a democratic political party for average American
citizens.
It has become a crack / coke party for US deep state manipulation. Even quick easy money
naive rich from Californian IT companies and Texas oil pumpers are being taken for a ride.
Tim Jenkins ,
" the lead investigator in the Russia investigation did not appear familiar with the
details of his own inquiry."
The ghost of journalism past, wailed.
Sums it up, no different from the WTC7 investigation & the then FBI Boss Bob Mueller,
who got the job 2 days before the controlled demolition, same ole' story Melancholy Mule
Mueller . . . Trump cannot make things clearer to the world's politicians, other than
stamping "guilty & complicit" on Mueller's forehead and lest anybody forget that Trump
specialises still, in steel frame architecture & function, just ask yourself why Mueller
has not said a word about his old corrupted FBI best buddy Comey, (guilty of Treason) or WTC7
Physics, either absobleedin'lutelyobvious Trump would tweet, "MIT ..Mueller, 'innit',
"thickly, und dass mit Mitt Romney, arrrgh du, Scheisse, Mueller is German name und Romney
may be a derivative of Rommel surely?"
Arrest Murdoch, Mueller, Mifsud, Merkel, Milliband, May & Macron, after Bolton, Blair
& Bush, just for starters but we gotta' get to guys like Comey, Cheney & Corbyn ?
🙂 please, must I further alliterate: heads must roll for professional incompetence,
amongst judges, too Laws were broken, massively!
Arrrrgh but not: just silence Julian Assange instead, simples. Whatever you decide, Don't
arrest Killary, please, I couldn't handle the public hanging, a military solution will
suffice and I'm sure there are many worthy & justified candidates who would opt 'in' for
the 'Hit', ex-vets naturally: History will show, Mainstream Journalism died thanks to HRC
😉
Today, re-writing history is the name of the game of thrones, drones & malicious tones,
for digestive spirits addicted to capitalistic narcissism, serving no purpose.
Not even learning . . .
Great article, Max 🙂
Frank Speaker ,
Excellent article.
What puzzles me is why Trump / his AG aren't prosecuting Biden.
wardropper ,
Perhaps they're letting it simmer for a while first, so that all the details will have sunk
in by the time we're ready for the meal
Jack_Garbo ,
You still believe Trump's running the show? The clown is following orders, stumbling over the
big two-syllable words, and too often exposing his puerile predilection for tantrums. But he
makes no decisions worthy of the name.
The Impeachment charade was to distract the drooling public and was handled artfully by the
Dems, since their abject failure had to look sincere. Trouble is, little Master Petulance
took it seriously (didn't he get the memo? Oh, he doesn't read ) and fought back all nasty.
The rulers ares simply stringing out the game till elections, but their child emperor is
impatient. Was he the best clown in the circus after all?
Charlotte Russe ,
It's quite obvious, popular opposition on issues of social justice were suppressed and
diverted by the Dems exclusively attacking Trump on whether he's sufficiently militarily
aggressive towards Russia.
And this is why, the Wall Street Journal can flagrantly gloat and mockingly say Trump's
impeachment may have cinched his victory in 2020.
The "security state attack" against Trump was all a big joke. In other words, Trump's
"disposal" was not really important. The Idiot was no real threat to the affluent–they
had nothing on the line. The 10% enjoy excellent healthcare, terrific housing, and high
quality childcare. Their children are attending top private schools and will not worry about
student debt. The older bunch in this well-heeled crowd will never look at a meager social
security check as their only owner source of income and worry about paying utility bills,
buying food, or filling a prescription which literally keeps them alive. They'll never have
to think about finding enough cash for an unexpected emergency to fix a broken car, a busted
furnace, or a leaking roof.
The comfortably well-to-do couldn't care less if three years were squandered humiliating
themselves promoting a Russian invasion, while the working-class looked at this fiasco like a
deer in the headlights worrying about paying the monthly mortgage or the rent.
The scorn towards the working-class by the Democratic Party leadership is directly
reflected in an impeachment trial which attacks Trump for temporarily blocking $390 million
in military aid to Ukraine. The working-class are quite happy Trump temporarily blocked
military aid to Ukraine. In fact, they wish the Buffoon would permanently block all military
aid to every foreign country where US tax dollars are continually being squandered. The
working-poor had enough of these military misadventures. They want their tax dollars to
provide healthcare, affordable housing, quality childcare, clean drinking water, and a
livable minimum wage.
Trump the shameless lying street fighter, knows all of this and he'll exploit it fully as
he marches through the rust-belt victoriously proclaiming judicial vindication over the
feckless feeble Dems. From day one the antidote ridding the world of this orange bullshitter
was apparent– attack the Idiot from the Left–
specifically point out every lie, but most importantly prove how his policies, legislation,
and Executives Orders are screwing over the working-class. However, to do all that the
Democratic Party would need to be a genuine "opposition political party" and not a private
organization representing Wall Street, the big banks, and the surveillance state.
Capricornia Man ,
Absolutely correct, Charlotte! The Democrats' relentless pursuit of the Russiagate and
Ukrainegate nonsense was intended to distract people from the fact that they would sooner do
almost anything than fight Trump's pro-corporate policies.
If the Dems put forward another war-and-Wall Street candidate who offers nothing to the
working class, then Trump is assured of another four years in office –
unfortunately.
Antonym ,
Trump just wanted to make business deals with anybody, be they Russia or China or Z.
US Deep state needs an Enemy to justify their monster budgets and full spectrum
domination, but only an enemy that does not upset their Lower Manhattan branch, so China was
out being too good for US investors, but Russia or Iran are perfect. A repeat of what
happened after WWII and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
9/11 "Global Terrorism" is now a bit passe.
In its search for an Enemy it became the Enemy / Devil.
Louis N. Proyect ,
This article elides important elements, namely that Zelensky is a Jew and that he is regarded
as pro-Russian by Ukrainian nationalists. With so many on the left trying to paint all
Ukrainians as neo-Nazis, there's the inconvenient fact of Ukraine being the only country in
all of Europe to elect a Jew as head of state.
He was elected largely on the basis for fighting corruption and for ending the war with
the secessionists. He was not only undermined by Trump. Putin took advantage of his dovish
politics as this article points out:
Mr. Zelensky, under mounting pressure at home from nationalists who accuse him of
capitulating to Russia, arrived in Paris with limited room to maneuver and far fewer
military or political resources to call on than Mr. Putin. His previous gestures of good
will, notably the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the front line, have won no
reciprocal steps by Russia or the rebels it supports in the regions of Donetsk and
Luhansk.
His position was further weakened by the absence of strong support from the United
States, something that Ukraine had previously relied on as it struggles to hold its own on
the battlefield against Russian troops -- which the Kremlin has insisted are not serving
soldiers but merely Russians "on vacation" -- as well as armed separatists supported by
Moscow.
NY Times, December 9, 2019
Max Parry ,
By your logic on Ukraine electing a Jew, when Obama was elected here it meant America had
less of a racism problem, which is absurd. The left, which certainly does not include you,
does NOT paint all Ukrainians as neo-Nazis and has made it quite clear the resurgence in
nationalism is in the Western part of the country and is being normalized by the oligarchic
parties.
paul ,
There is an alliance of convenience between Jewish oligarchs like Kolomoisky and Nazi thugs
like the Azov battalion, with the latter playing the part of useful idiots/ cannon fodder.
Rather like Tommy Robinson and his £10,000 a month Zionist stipend. Incidentally, it is
not correct that only Ukraine has had a Jewish president – the same applies to Austria
and the Baltics.
Ukraine is a real tragedy. Since independence in 1991, it has lost nearly half its
population, down from 52 to 30 million, if you take the loss of Crimea/ Donbas/ 1.5 million
refugees/ millions of economic migrants scratching a living abroad picking cabbages or
working as prostitutes into account. It was previously the most prosperous and highly
developed part of the Soviet Union, with advanced industries and a highly educated and
skilled work force. All this is now gone, the result of years of uncontrolled non stop
looting by the Kolomoiskys. The average standard of living in Ukraine is now significantly
lower than that of Egypt.
Washington will ally itself with any group of thugs to achieve its ends in its regime
change projects, Ukrainian Nazis or an alphabet soup of Islamist head choppers and throat
slitters. America constantly plays the part of the comic villain Hedley Lamar in Blazing
Saddles, recruiting an army of villains to achieve his ends. There are no depths Uncle Shmuel
will not plumb. The Nazi thugs who staged the Maidan Coup were on the US embassy payroll,
given $25 a day and provided with free booze, free drugs and free prostitutes.
Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on earth. $50 billion of western taxpayers'
money has been poured into the country to prop up the Kiev Regime. There is nothing to show
for this. It has flowed out of the country into the private bank accounts of the oligarchs,
politicians and US dual/ triple national carpetbaggers, who have descended on the country
like the Nulands, the Vindmans, the Ioanovitches. Almost without exception, these are rabid
professional Russia hater Jews, though the Bidens could also wet their beaks. There was
enough to go round.
Clinton, the most corrupt politician in US history, was supposed to have won the election
to keep this gravy train rolling, and the "Ukrainians" actively meddled in the 2016 election
to bring about the desired result. When Trump won, these characters reacted with all the fury
of a dog that has had its bone taken away.
Baron ,
@ paul.
Short, but spot on, paul, from the first to the last word.
A friend goes to Ukraine regularly to recruit people, he claims corruption's unbelievable,
often he has to pay to park a car on a street with unrestricted parking, one doesn't, the
tyres get slashed; old people barely surviving on pitiful pensions, a 1000 hrivnas pension is
considered good, some pensioners get less (100 hrivnas = £3 approx; the chain Lidl
operates in the country, its prices similar to the UK prices, the pensioners cannot afford
them), in villages domestic animals live together with families, tyres are used for heating,
as are empty plastic bottles stuffed with paper, old textile.
A true tragedy so close to the prosperous Western Europe, and nobody cares, certainly not
the poodles of the MSM. Criminal this.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Ukraine is the future as envisaged by the global overlords. A sort of Petri Dish in which to
breed the enforcer thugs that will be needed to consolidate oligarch rule as the whole farce
crumbles.
lundiel ,
As Anders Breivik said in his manifesto, "my enemies enemy is my friend ..we can deal with
the Jews later".
Tim Jenkins ,
LouisP. (no idea what the fuck the new added 'N' is all about, like new year for peeing
ourselves laughing over a 'NONSE' or what? ) 'woteva', did you get a pay rise with a
new year agenda, LOUIS, Louis, louise, stop prostitution, I say, especially your kind !
You honky mofo and may I add a pretty second rate honky mofo @that
When will you stop quoting the NYT and finally comprehend that they are complicit,
in every sense, arrrrgh 'Ja' die 'N' is for New Young Turk NYT Louis, now I get it . . .
FFS, Louis, have you had a brain scan recently ?
Max Parry ,
The N is for NATO
nottheonly1 ,
It might be helpful to remind people that the terms 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' are merely
the acronyms for 'head' or 'tale'. 'Up' and 'Down'. 'Left' and 'Right'. 'Trump' and 'Pelosi'.
All are:
Two Sides – One Coin
But who could blame the masses for focusing on who is not allowed to exist based on their
delusion. It is this deep sitting delusion that has created the present day 'western'
society. This deepsitting and hardwired belief, that everything, or anyone that does not
conform to their delusions is immediately doused with vile hate. The people in the picture
above are only the tiniest tip of the Nazi-Iceberg that will sink a Humanity called
'Titanic'.
Since it no longer actually matters what the truth really is, or what really is the truth,
one can certainly write whatever one feels like. Like if you say that Adolf Hitler (the
person, the people in the picture above have sworn posthum allegiance into death) was a
product of american fascists and not the product of the German population of that day –
then you are anti-semitic.
The people in the image above are not anti-semitic. They are for a world without gay
people (they don't use the term 'people'), in which there are only boys and girls, women and
men and nothing else. The women are were they belong – into the kitchen – and the
men watch 'Die Wochenschau' drink beer and go out to bash the heads of 'things' they don't
like.
All the ham theater of the U.S. regime aside, americans should take a good look at Ukraine
as a template of what is coming to them too, now.
To make that clear: There are Americans and there are americans. Americans are those who
were present before the first europeans arrived and a very, very few contemporary minds.
americans in low caps are the same low conscious human equivalents.
That should do it for now. The sad part though is, that the folks in question will not be
reformed. They have the backing of the orthodox church. You remember? 'A love story: religion
and fascism'?
No wonder the Jimmy Dore show is so popular.
I dare him to come up with a 24/7 political satire news channel. Quite the redundancy.
Harry Stotle ,
'It is clear that the impeachment is nothing more than an inter-war between different
factions of the elite and not only has it reduced the American people to onlookers, it may
get us all killed in a nuclear holocaust in the process.' – this is the take-home
message.
The MSM maintains a charade that we live in a democracy and can exercise something called
political choice – we can't, the deep state and lobby groups get on with making
decisions that serve only their interests while damaging many others, especially
overseas.
It never ceases to amaze me how more people can't see it, or how easy it is to channel
public rage toward selected targets.
Cosmopolitans liberals generally focus on identity politics (how dare he say or think
that) while the less culturally engaged are taught to hate and fear Russians, Iranians and of
course North Korea without ever understanding why – needless to say both groups are
oblivious to the crimes committed by western leaders that have led to millions of deaths
while contributing to the biggest refugee crises since WWII.
The likes of the BBC and Guardian pretend that all of this is normal and can always be
counted on to back the intelligence community whenever further blood-shed is required.
Only in a system this rotten can public figures like Trump, Hillary, Obama, or nearer to
home Johnson, IDS, Priti Patel, thrive.
Tim Jenkins ,
"It never ceases to amaze me how more people can't see it, or how easy it is to channel
public rage toward selected targets."
Consider yourself quoted: but, what about the North Iranians, Harry? If they unite with
Northern Koreans & Northern Russians to boot, think about it
The North KIRaneans could access evil 😉 shiver me timbers
Harry Stotle ,
When I think of the west's reaction to 'the axis of evil' (and yes, I admit I have
substituted Russia for Iraq, but such targets are pretty fluid on the neocon kill list) I
think of the 'little Albert' experiment.
This seminal experiment found that it all it took was 6 pairings to condition the subject
(in this instance the hapless baby Albert).
In the case of western societies, especially the USA it is more like 60 or 600 pairings
associating various targets, such as Assad with negative or evil traits.
For reasons not even they (the public) understand they find themselves automatically
hating counties or politicians that have been selected for them by the MSM (on behalf of
their handlers in the intelligence or military community).
Evidence or rational thinking seems to play almost no part in the 2-minute hate.
"Shortly after the putsch, Hunter Biden joined the board of directors at Burisma despite
having no experience in Ukraine or the energy sector."
It was a lot more than that, which should raise eyebrows or have you reaching for a kidney
basin.
Divorce proceedings don't usually bring to light the most flattering assessments, but his
ex-wife did note his gambling and sex addictions and his habitual residence in the front rows
of topless bars, strip clubs and suggested his lap did double duty as a dance floor.
While he was in a sexual relationship with his dead brothers wife, he was sued for
paternity by a Louisiana stripper. He completely denied having sex with her but DNA proved
her claim, notwithstanding her public humiliation by having to admit she had sex with the man
known as "cunter". He was shown the door by the Navy, days after joining it, when his urine
tested positive for coke, a test he knew would be done, but he was still unable to forgo the
coke for even a few days in advance.
In the NYT, it was claimed that Burisma hired Biden to gain the respectability he would
engender. How valuable is that Hunter-borne respectability? A million a year.
Now let's get down to the real issue. The new bribery aka THE SHAM CONTRACT.
Pioneered or honed to a fine art in our times by the notorious larger than life scumbags
Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair, it consists of being paid for a non-service, or one
masquerading as a service, grotesquely disproportionate to its value. Formerly known as a
bribe.
So Hillary gives a speech to Goldman Sachs. No matter that the audience is not listening,
texting their insider trading orders, or simply bored stiff. GS gives her $250k.Tony Blair ,
now worth well over 75 million quid substantially on the back of "lectures" to American
neocons. But who is to know if the lectures were any good or if it was just a payoff to the "
Middle East Peace Envoy" for sending young men off to die in Iraq etc.
So it is with "Hunter", being paid a million dollars a year to be on the board of Burisma
when his cv seems to warrant a different board (water board?). If you wish to offload your
breakfast, read the former president of Poland extol Hunter's board activities.
So Trump wanted to know what "Hunter " was doing for the million/year. Hell, inquiring
minds want to know. I want to know. But you can bet your Maltese bippy that his advice on lap
dancing or whatever it was, might not have been worth a million/ year. And Trump's curiosity
led to governmental (emphasis on the mental) paralysis so the Democratic Party having made
fools of themselves over Russiagate, could make scurrilous accusations in prime time. Some of
which are surely true, but wasting time and resources with an all-consuming hysterical smoke
and mirrors operation aimed at hiding what?
paul ,
No, you're quite wrong, Biden Junior had to work hard for those millions.
Hunter had to smile a lot and have his photograph taken, and read a couple of speeches that
were written for him.
Tim Jenkins ,
brilliant synopsis G.C. Top Cat Comment 🙂
So, were I refer to the CBT 's actions, ("Cunter" Bribe Tribe), in future we would be on
the same the page, I figure: the hunters & gatherers know no limits and it's high time
law was applied, coz' laws exist . . .
hard to believe, in justice, today !
Antonym ,
Count down for resident jokers blaming this or US Neo-Ukraine support on "the Zionists":
3,2,1 .
lundiel ,
Trump aside, I still can't get my head around the total silence on the Bidens.
Antonym ,
Biden in a clog in the CIA's foreign policy, which needs enemies to stay flush in money
hence
MSM silence.
The "department of Homeland security" after 9/11 was their coup d'etat of the US; it should
translate as "Ministry of Deep State truth & security".
TFS ,
Surely Democrats could Impeach Donald for the following:
1.
Iraq voted for America to leave its country
America refused to do so, whilst admitting to stealing their oil.
This is in contravention of International Law.
Impeach That.
2.
America just outline the deal of the century, peace plan for Israel/Palestine.
It's in contravention of International Law
Impeach That.
Why are the Dems, those notorious sticklers for the rule of law, so silent?
nottheonly1 ,
They are of the same coin, whose 'other' side they are supposedly opposing.
Yeah the whole "impeachment" circus pulled up its stakes and Trump was acquitted. The
Democrats remind me of Wile E Coyote.It used to be that the Democrats were called the Evil
Party and the Republicans Stupid but it seems the roles have reversed or maybe one is more
stupid than evil.
Here's hoping that the clown car drives itself into the Potomac which would be the
American Dream for some.
nottheonly1 ,
You are aware of the fact, that Wile E. Coyote was also a Rocket Scientist, correct? Only the
bias of the producers prevented him from ever succeeding with his brilliant attempts to
gather food.
The democrats are no match for Wile E. Coyote.
Jen ,
Wile E Coyote did insist on using Acme Corporation products. In those halcyon days of Bugs
Bunny cartoons, Acme Corporation was the Boeing Corporation of its time with Acme products
liable to fail, peter out, backfire or explode at the most inconvenient time. Why that rocket
scientist didn't try the competition's products in his hunter-gatherer lifestyle forever
remains a mystery.
sharon marlowe ,
Thanks, Off Guardian:)
I generally like this article, but there is what I see as a myth about Trump vs the
Establishment:
"It was Trump's rhetoric as a peace candidate suggesting rapprochement with Russia which
made him a target of the political establishment and intelligence community "
Trump could not be looked at as a "peace candidate" by anyone but his weirdo crazy fans
when he was running for President. He could only be looked at as a liar-conman. That he
wanted to make money off Russia, and therefore would not be as likely to call for a no-fly
zone in Syria as Hillary, doesn't remotely come close to being for peace. It appears to me
that Trump and Netanyahu were united, and Netanyahu had support from many russian-israelis in
the Israel regime. Putin has expressed a real kinship with the russian-israelis(which could
be why Putin doesn't stop the israelis from bombing Syria whenever they wish?). Perhaps that
is where one can find "russian collusion"–the russians though, are citizens of
Israel;)
So, just that problem with the article. The myth that Trump posed as a peace candidate
shouldn't turn into revisionism, like how people today claim that Obama ran on stopping the
wars.
Max Parry ,
Actually there was an academic study released which indicates voters in key battleground
states saw him as the peace candidate relative to Hillary Clinton.
Max – that is the key point I'd say – that "relative" to Hillary 'the rot'
Clinton, Attila the Hun could be legitimately seen as a "peace candidate." As completely
odious and amoral as the Orange One is, clearly before "Russiagate" magically erupted and
then morphed again quite magically into impeachment, Trump had simply not appropriately
'rattled the saber' toward Russia as required by America's deep state and MSM institutional
structures.
I dare say that many of us on the left in the U.S. (those long outside the two party
structures) saw HRC as arguably the most clearly militarily dangerous of these two corrupt
oligarchs when it came to the rather important – foreign policy front. For some reason
many seen to have trouble tracking this bit of nuance.
SharonM ,
Hello, Max Parry. That was a very good article you wrote, thank you:)
There are assumptions in that study. Often they cite "sacrifice" made by the U.S. military
for U.S. "security". None of that goes on and hasn't gone on this entire century. The U.S.
military is used as an invading force, not as defenders of their country. I don't think the
people who sign up to be mercenaries for hegemony can claim ignorance for much longer and
still be believed. American voters can vote for peace by voting for antiwar parties. It makes
no sense to claim that american voters want peace while voting for the two major war parties.
The americans who truly want peace vote for ant-war parties, or they're not voters. The war
party voters just don't give a shit about war, or worse, they really like war.
Max Parry ,
I certainly wouldn't argue for the authenticity of Trump's campaign rhetoric since he
reversed nearly all of it as president, just like Obama. And many forget even George W. Bush
made some anti-interventionist statements in the debates against Al Gore in 2000.
SharonM ,
Yes. Trump was nowhere close to being considered a peace candidate. It is common for the two
war parties to criticize each other's wars, but both parties are pro-war..and so are their
voters..and their volunteer mercenaries.
alsdkfj ,
Ah, more propaganda for the fascist Trump I see. What else is new for Off Guardian?
What, Trump wouldn't sell arms to Neo-Nazis?
You're kidding me right?
Off Guardian loves their fascist racist misogynist epic jerk Trump.
The farce runs deep in this one. Obviously you didn't read the article either because you are
illiterate or your brain has been sucked by a giant Arachnid.
George Cornell ,
Not really. There isn't and wasn't much value difference between Trump and the warmongering,
murderous, unprincipled neocon candidate harridan known as Hillary. It might seem that way as
anyone trying to enable some semblance of balance is immediately attacked by the Democratic
party's stormtroopers and internet battalions.
lundiel ,
It's all gone straight over your head. Read George Cornell's comment above, then read Harry
Stotle's and come back with an argument as to why Biden should be the democrat candidate and
Trump should be impeached.
I doubt if any here share Trump's politics, or admire him, but we can all see a stitch-up
when it's as plain as this one.
Max Parry ,
He did sell them arms. He was impeached when he momentarily stopped. Are you illiterate?
Tim Jenkins ,
If you like, I could teach you how to troll & shill, project & transfer, to a much
higher standard, with far more intrigue and far far less obvious . . . tell your bosses.
Do you mind if I ask what your boss & you get, collectively, paid and if you respect
him?
And,for that matter, yourself (lol 🙂 )
Coz', by my standards, I'd fire the pair of you and do a much better job in the process,
& much cheaper, Alone . . . so, I figure, applications to M.O.D.@77thBrigadeLYS,
lonely young souls,
the younger the better, just kids.
No Men Required for propaganda purposes.
That's all
Over & Out.
I was obvious that Flynn was targeted for elimination by what ludicrously calls itself the
"resistance" right from the beginning using Hoover's G-boys and girls who have by the way
been heavily infiltrated by CIA to get him.
Many of the players involved in this act worked in CI which is closely connected to the
CIA's own counter intelligence. In fact the connections are so incestuous that many of the
FBI's "agents" are sheep dipped Agency officers.
One has to ask themselves why the FBI would be so interested in foreign policy? Hoover
despite his many failings stayed out of the area of Foreign Intel yet the Bureau currently
seems obsessed by it.
Why? Probably because they are working on the same team as CIA, NSA, DIA, DHS and the
other alphabet soup agencies who gain their power from what could be correctly called the War
of Terror. Flynn being a threat because he was in agreement with Trump's proposed
noninterventionist foreign policy.
The same one he promised his voters but has currently reneged on. Remember the
"resistance" as they call themselves but are really the same ol' shit faction want America
constantly embroiled in Foreign conflicts and the operation known as the "Purple
Revolution"by the same group who likes to color code their regime changes was not only to
take down Flynn but Trump as well. A soft coup in other words.
Now that Trump's playing ball they can go after his base and those on the left who oppose
the usual that the so called "resistance' offers.
Seamus Padraig ,
One has to ask themselves why the FBI would be so interested in foreign policy? Hoover
despite his many failings stayed out of the area of Foreign Intel yet the Bureau currently
seems obsessed by it.
The FBI does have a counter-intelligence function, so that would give them some legitimate
interest in the activities of foreign intelligence services, at least; but I suspect their
obsession with Trump and Flynn goes far, far beyond any legitimate legal mandate.
True they've always had a CI function but it was more like a total Keystone Kops' operation.
Still is probably when you consider that Hannssen worked in their CI for over two decades
without being detected.
Of there's CIA with James Jesus Angleton who was a good friend of Kim Philby who wrecked
any CI capability both FBI and CIA had by being suspicious of any Russiaphile.
In fact this whole Russiaphobia and hoax is probably the resurrection of the ghost of
Angleton.
True Hoover spent more time chasing Commie and creating the Red Scare than he did cross
dressing and hanging out a Mob hangouts which he assured us didn't exist.
This book sheds some light into the story of how Administrative assistants to Present became
independent heavily influenced by CIA body controlling the USA foreign policy and to a large
extent controlling the President. Recent revolt of NSC (Aka Ukrainegate) shows that the servant
became the master
The books contains some interesting information about forming NSC by Truman --- the father of
the US National Security State. And bureaucratic turf war the preceded it. It wwas actually
Eisenhower who created forma position of a "special assistant to the president for national
security affairs"
The author also cover a little bit disastrous decision to launch a "surge" (ironically by the
female chickenhawk Meghan O'Sullivan), -- which attests neocon nature of current NSC and level of
indoctrination of staffers in "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine quite clearly. That's why a
faction of NSC launched a coup d'état against Trump in t he form of Ukrainegate and
probably was instrumental in Russiagate as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis, intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September 11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington. ..."
"... Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars. ..."
"... Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course. ..."
"... The NSC common law's kept the peace in Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the bureaucracy and military. ..."
"... ...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches. 13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government policy without accountability. ..."
"... it is no wonder some Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants. ..."
"... Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. ..."
"... ... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government. ..."
"... The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars ahead. ..."
The men and women walking the hushed corridors of the Executive Office Building do not look
like warriors. Most are middle-aged professionals with penchants for dark business suits and
prestigious graduate degrees, who have spent their lives serving their country in windowless
offices, on far-off battle-fields, or at embassies abroad. Before arriving at the NSC, many
joined the military or the nation's diplomatic corps, some dedicated themselves to teaching and
writing about national security, and others spent their days working for the types of
politicians who become presidents. By the time they joined the staff, each had shown the pluck
-- and the good fortune -- required to end up staffing a president.
When each NSC staffer first walks up the steps to the Executive Office Building, he or she
joins an institution like no other in government. Compared to the Pentagon and other
bureaucracies, the staff is small, hierarchically flat with only a few titles like directors
and senior directors reporting to the national security advisor and his or her deputies.
Compared to all those at the agencies, even most cabinet secretaries, the staff are also given
unparalleled access to the president and the discussions about the biggest decisions in
national security.
Yet despite their access, the NSC staff was created as a political, legal, and bureaucratic
afterthought. The National Security Council was established both
to better coordinate foreign policy after World War II and as part of a deal to create what
became known as the Defense Department. Since the army and navy only agreed to be unified under
a single department and a civilian cabinet secretary if each still had a seat at the table
where decisions about war were expected to be made, establishing the National Security Council
was critical to ensuring passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law, as well as its
amendments two years later, unified the armed forces while also establishing the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the CIA.
... ... ...
Fans of television's the West Wing would be forgiven for expecting that once in the Oval
Office, all a staffer needs to do to change policy is to deliver a well-timed whisper in the
president's car or a rousing speech in his company. It is not that such dramatic moments never
occur, but real change in government requires not just speaking up but the grinding policy work
required to have something new to say.
A staffer, alone or with NSC and agency colleagues, must develop an idea until feasible and
defend it from opposition driven by personal pique, bureaucratic jealousy, or substantive
disagreement, and often all three.
Granted none of these fights are over particularly new ideas, as few proposals in war are
truly novel. If anything, the staffs history is a reminder of how little new there is under the
guise of national security. Alter all, escalations, ultimatums, and counterinsurgency are only
innovative in the context of the latest conflicts. The NSC staff is usually proposing old
ideas, some as old as war itself like a surge of troops, to new circumstances and a critical
moment.
Yet even an old idea can have real power in the right hands at the right time, so it is
worth considering how much more influence the NSC brings to its fights today.
... ... ...
A larger staff can do even more thanks to technology. With the establishment of the
Situation Room in 1961 and its subsequent upgrades, as well as the widespread adoption of email
in the 1980s, the classified email system during the 2000s, and desktop video teleconferencing
systems in the 2010s, White House technology upgrades have been justified because the president
deserves the latest and the fastest. These same advances give each member of the staff global
reach, including to war zones half a world away, from the safety of the Executive Office
Building.
The NSC has also grown more powerful along with the presidency it serves. The White House,
even in the hands of an inexperienced and disorganized president like Trump, drives the
government's agenda, the news media's coverage, and the American public's attention. The NSC
staff can, if skilled enough, leverage the office's influence for their own ideas and purposes.
Presidents have also explicitly empowered the staff in big ways -- like putting them in the
middle of the policymaking process -- and small -- like granting them ranks that put them on
the same level as other agency officials.
Recent staffers have also had the president's ear nearly every day, and sometimes more
often, while secretaries of state and defense rarely have that much face time in the Oval
Office. Each has a department with tens of thousands (and in the Pentagon's case millions) of
employees to manage. Most significantly, both also answer not just to the president but to
Congress, which has oversight authority for their departments and an expectation for regular
updates. There are few more consequential power differences between the NSC and the departments
than to whom each must answer.
Even more, the NSC staff get to work and fight in anonymity. Members of Congress,
journalists, and historians are usually too busy keeping track of the National Security Council
principals to focus on the guys and gals behind the national security advisors, who are
themselves behind the president. Few in Washington, and fewer still across the country, know
the names of the staff advising the president let alone what they arc saying in their memos and
moments with him.
Today, there arc too many unnamed NSC staffers for anyone's good, including their own. Even
with the recent congressional limit on policy staffers, the NSC is too big to be thoroughly
managed or effective. National security advisors and their deputies are so busy during their
days that it is hard to keep up with all their own emails, calls, and reading, let alone ensure
each member of the staff is doing their own work or doing it well. The common law and a de
tacto honor system has also struggled to keep staff in check as they try to handle every issue
from war to women's rights and every to-do list item from drafting talking points to doing
secret diplomacy.
Although many factors contribute to the NSC's success, history suggests they do best with
the right-size job. The answer to better national security policy and process is not a bigger
staff but smaller writs. The NSC should focus on fewer issues, and then only on the smaller
stuff, like what the president needs for calls and meetings, and the big, what some call grand
strategic, questions about the nation's interests, ambitions, and capacities that should be
asked and answered before any major decision.
... ... ...
Along the way, the staff has taken on greater responsibilities from agencies like the
departments of state and defense as each has grown more bureaucratic and sclerotic.
Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis,
intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September
11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the
military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to
reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington.
As a result, today the NSC has, regretfully, become the strategic engine of the government's
national security policymaking. The staff, along with the national security advisor, determine
which issues -- large and small -- require attention, develop the plans for most of them, and
try to manage day-to-day the implementation of each strategy. That is too sweeping a remit for
a couple hundred unaccountable staffers sitting at the Executive Office Building thousands of
miles from war zones and foreign capitals. Such immense responsibility also docs not make the
best use of talent in government, leaving the military and the nation's diplomats fighting with
the White House over policies while trying to execute plans they have less and less ownership
over.
... ... ...
Although protocol still requires members of the NSC to sit on the backbench in National
Security Council meetings, the staff s voice and advice can carry as much weight as those of
the principals sitting at the table, just as the staff has taken on more of each department's
responsibilities, the NSC arc expected to be advisors to the president, even on military
strategy. With that charge, the staff has taken to spending more time and effort developing
their own policy ideas -- and fighting for them.
Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands
of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they
come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and
visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC
staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars.
The American way of war, developed over decades of thinking and fighting, informs how and
why the nation goes to battle. Over the course of American history and, most relevantly, since
the end of World War II, the US military and other national security professionals have
developed, often through great turmoil, strategic preferences and habits, like deploying the
latest technology possible instead of the largest number of troops. Despite the tremendous
planning that goes into these most serious of undertakings, each new conflict tests the
prevailing way of war and often finds it wanting.
Even knowing how dangerous it is to relight the last war, it is still not easy to find the
right course for a new one. Government in general and national security specifically are
risk-averse enterprises where it is often simpler to rely on standard operating procedures and
stay on a chosen course, regardless of whether progress is slow and the sense of drift is
severe. Even then, many in the military, who often react to even the mildest of suggestions and
inquiries as unnecessary or even dangerous micromanagement, defend the prevailing approach with
its defining doctrine and syndrome.
As Machiavelli recommended long ago, there is a need for hard questions in government and
war in particular. He wrote that a leader "ought to be a great askcr, and a patient hearer of
the truth." 7 From the Executive Office Building, the NSC staff, who are more
distanced from the action as well as the fog of war, have tried to fill this role for a busy
and often distracted president. They are, however, not nearly as patient as Machiavelli
recommended: they have proven more willing, indeed too willing at times, to ask about what is
working and what is not.
Warfighters are not alone in being frustrated by questions: everyone from architects to
zookeepers believes they know how best to do their job and that with a bit more time, they will
get it right. Without any of the responsibility for the doing, the NSC staff not only asks hard
questions but, by avoiding implementation bias, is willing to admit, often long before those in
the field, that the current plan is failing. A more technologically advanced NSC, with the
ability to reach deep into the chain of command and war zones for updates, has also given the
staff the intelligence to back up its impatience.
Most times in history, the NSC staff has correctly predicted that time is running against a
chosen strategy. Halperin. and others on the Nixon NSC, were accurate in their assessments of
Vietnam. Dur and his Reagan NSC colleagues were right to worry that diplomacy was moving too
slowly in Lebanon. Haass and Vershbow were correct when they were concerned with how windows of
opportunity for action were shrinking in the Gulf and Balkans respectively, just as O'Sullivan
was right that things needed to change relatively soon in Iraq.
Yet an impatient NSC staff has a worse track record giving the president answers to what
should come next. The NSC staff naturally have opinions and ideas about what can be done when
events and war feel out of control, but ideas about what can be done when events and war feel
out of control, but the very distance and disengagement that allow' the NSC to be so effective
at measuring progress make its ideas less grounded in operational realities and more clouded by
the fog of Washington. The NSC, often stridently, wants to do something more, to "go big when
wc can," as one recent staffer encouraged his president, to fix a failing policy or win a w
r ar, but that is not a strategy, nor does that ambition make the staff the best
equipped to figure out the next steps."
With their proposals for a new plan, deployment, or initiative, the staff has made more bad
recommendations than good. The Diem coup and the Beirut mission are two examples, and
particularly tragic ones at that, of NSC staff recommendations gone awry. The Iraq surge was
certainly a courageous decision, but by committing so many troops to that country, the manpower
w r as not available for a war in Afghanistan that was falling off track. Even the
more successful NSC recommendations for changes in US strategy in the Gulf War and in Bosnia
did not end up exactly as planned, in part because even good ideas in war rarely do.
Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC
staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In
conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way
of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the
frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive
Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to
accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course.
And it is characterized by more frequent and counterproductive friction between the civilian
and military leaders.
... ... ...
Through it all, as the NSC's voice has grown louder in the nation's war rooms, the staff has
transformed how Washington works, and more often does not work. The NSC's fights to change
course have had another casualty: the ugly collapse of the common law' that has governed
Washington policymaking for more than a generation. The result today is a government that
trusts less, fights more, and decides much slower.
National security policy- and decision-making was never supposed to be a fair fight. Eliot
Cohen, a civil-military scholar with high-level government experience, has called the
give-and-take of the interagency process an "unequal" dialogue -- one in which presidents are
entitled to not just make the ultimate decision but also to ask questions, often with the NSC's
help, at any time and about any topic.* Everyone else, from the secretaries of state and
defense in Washington dow r n to the commanders and ambassadors abroad, has to
expect and tolerate such presidential interventions and then carry out his orders.
Even an unfair fight can have rules, however. The NSC common law's kept the peace in
Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized
operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the
agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed
the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after
September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and
occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more
responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the
bureaucracy and military.
... ... ...
...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New
York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid
Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches.
13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll
found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government
policy without accountability.
In an era when Americans can see on reality television how their fish are caught, meals arc
cooked, and businesses are financed, it is strange that few have ever heard the voice of an NSC
staffer. The Executive Office Building is not the only building out of reach: most of the
government taxpayers' fund is hard, and getting harder, to see. With bigger security blockades,
longer waits on declassification, and more severe crackdowns on leaks, it is no wonder some
Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants.
The American people need to know the NSC's war stories if for no other reason than each
makes clear that there is no organized deep state in Washington. If one existed, there would be
little need for the NSC to fight so hard to coordinate the government's various players and
parts. However, this history also makes plain that though the United States can overcome bad
decisions and survive military disasters, a belief in a deep state is a threat to the NSC and
so much more.
... ... ...
Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power
has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives
up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what
they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. Shortcuts and squabbles may make
sense when every second feels like it counts, but the best public servants do what is necessary
for the president even as they protect, for years to come, the health of the institutions and
the very democracy in which they serve. As hard as that can be to remember when the clock in
the Oval Office is ticking, doing things the right way is even more important than the latest
crises, war, or meeting with the president.
... ... ...
... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten
that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC
has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its
members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more
fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government.
Centuries ago, Plato argued that civilians must hope for warriors who could be trusted to be
both "gentle to their own and cruel to their enemies." At a time when many doubt government and
those who serve in it, the NSC staff s history demonstrates just what White House warriors arc
capable of. The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars
ahead.
... ... ...
The legendary British double agent Kim Philby wrote: "just because a document is a document
it has a glamour which tempts the reader to give it more weight than it deserves An hour of a
serious discussion with a trustworthy informant is often more valuable than any number of
original documents. Of course, it is best to have both."
A must-read for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. Gans pulls back the
curtain on arguably the most powerful yet opaque body in foreign policy decision-making,
the National Security Council. Each chapter recounts a different administration -- as told
through the work of an NSC staffer. Through these beautifully-written portraits of largely
unknown staffers, Gans reveals the chilling, outsized influence of this small, unelected
institution on American war and peace. From this perspective, even the policy success
stories seem more luck than skill -- leaving readers concerned about the NSC's continued
unchecked power.
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime
like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.
Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges
that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides
understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.
Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.
Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and
in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing
for him to
do.
Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."
And
"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."
Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents
and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov
battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy
In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means
much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump
slightly deviated.
Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close
relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together 1/2
RT.com, Jan. 30, 2020 has the back
story:
"Ciaramella, a CIA analyst, is widely believed to be the 'whistleblower' who kickstarted the
impeachment inquiry by alleging that Trump tried to strong-arm Zelensky into reopening a
corruption investigation into Joe Biden's son, Hunter, and his business activities in Ukraine."
[snip]
Schiff, the lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial, has both denied knowing the identity
of the whistleblower and called the report of Ciaramella's plot a "conspiracy theory." Schiff
has also repeatedly warned Republicans against naming the whistleblower, citing a need to
protect his or her identity – though no statutory requirement for that actually
exists.
However, Roberts' refusal to read Ciaramella's name and the media furor that followed Paul's
question – with mostly liberal pundits hounding the senator for "naming the
whistleblower" – all but confirms that he is indeed Schiff's source. Paul never mentioned
the term "whistleblower" in his written question, yet Roberts still refused to read
Ciaramella's name. Earlier, Roberts had vowed not to read any question that might "out" the
whistleblower."
RT had also linked to this
Jan. 22 2020 piece at realcrealinvestigations.com:
"Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst
whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the
anonymous "whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the
White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from
office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean
Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign
policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump's new "America First"
foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama's approach to international affairs.
"Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,"
said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.
"They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda," the former official added. "They were
plotting to actually have him removed from office."
Misko left the White House last summer to join House impeachment manager Adam Schiff's
committee, where sources say he offered "guidance" to the whistleblower, who has been
officially identified only as an intelligence officer in a complaint against Trump filed under
whistleblower laws. Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry based on that complaint as a
top investigator for congressional Democrats." [snip]
"The coordination between the official believed to be the whistleblower and a key Democratic
staffer, details of which are disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the narrative that
impeachment developed spontaneously out of what Trump's Democratic antagonists call the
"patriotism" of an "apolitical civil servant."
Today's the day ♫the Teddy Bears have their picnic♪♫ Senate
will decide if any more witnesses will be permitted to testify/testilie...or not.
@The
Voice In the Wilderness well aware of Deep State machinations should they dare to
wander off the reservation. Dallas lesson has been learned -- maybe a little too well.
Dems also are aware their D president could be next -- in fact, one was already next, not
too long after Nixon, when the R Congress decided to seek revenge and impeach B Clinton over a
trivial personal dalliance. At least U=gate involves actual conduct by the president acting in
his official not personal capacity, so at least is sufficient enough for an argument on
impeachment grounds. Unfortunately for the Trump team, Alan Dershowitz' bizarre Louis XIV
defense makes for an embarrassing attempt at rebutting the charges.
"They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda," the former official added. "They
were plotting to actually have him removed from office."
And Pelosi and Schiff are co-conspirators.
They should be arrested by the FBI for conspiring to overthrow the elected government.
Democrats may feel that anything goes to get rid of Trump, but forget that they could be
next. No Democrat would be safe from Deep state machinations.
It's time to purge the intelligence agencies of anyone doing anything but actual data
gathering and analysis.
@wokkamile
The Washington "royal court" has degenerated so far that impeachment over trivialities (and
comparing them to his real crimes only proves the pettiness) has been established as the norm.
It is the Democrats who have crossed the line that should never be crossed. (actually it was
the Republicans who did with Clinton, but that was quickly forgotten.(but not punished) This
will not) America is now officially a failed state, a chaotic oligarchy where debauchery and
intrigue rules.
#1 well
aware of Deep State machinations should they dare to wander off the reservation. Dallas
lesson has been learned -- maybe a little too well.
Dems also are aware their D president could be next -- in fact, one was already next,
not too long after Nixon, when the R Congress decided to seek revenge and impeach B Clinton
over a trivial personal dalliance. At least U=gate involves actual conduct by the president
acting in his official not personal capacity, so at least is sufficient enough for an
argument on impeachment grounds. Unfortunately for the Trump team, Alan Dershowitz' bizarre
Louis XIV defense makes for an embarrassing attempt at rebutting the charges.
"...impeachment over trivialities (and comparing them to his real crimes only proves the
pettiness) has been established as the norm.
he belongs in the hague, with at least the last four presidents before him. but compared to
what biden actually did in ukraine. .
i'll just add this groaner, but big $$$ feature big time: ' Pompeo in Kiev: Ukrainians want
to be more than friends but Trump's team ain't interested' , jan. 31 , bryan macDonald
#1.1
The Washington "royal court" has degenerated so far that impeachment over trivialities (and
comparing them to his real crimes only proves the pettiness) has been established as the
norm. It is the Democrats who have crossed the line that should never be crossed. (actually
it was the Republicans who did with Clinton, but that was quickly forgotten.(but not
punished) This will not) America is now officially a failed state, a chaotic oligarchy
where debauchery and intrigue rules.
that's the same excuse obomabots used to give: "he had to do it to or they'd JFK him ! (bail
out the banks to the tune of $1,7 trillion, drone murder hundreds in afghanistan, (sorry for
the Bug Splat), and on down the list.
Hint to Presidential Hopefuls: if ya think ya might not be able to handle the heat: stay out
of the kitchen! and again, i can't imagine anyone believing they should be president, let alone
imaging they'd be 'good' at it, whatever that low bar means by now.
#1 well
aware of Deep State machinations should they dare to wander off the reservation. Dallas
lesson has been learned -- maybe a little too well.
Dems also are aware their D president could be next -- in fact, one was already next,
not too long after Nixon, when the R Congress decided to seek revenge and impeach B Clinton
over a trivial personal dalliance. At least U=gate involves actual conduct by the president
acting in his official not personal capacity, so at least is sufficient enough for an
argument on impeachment grounds. Unfortunately for the Trump team, Alan Dershowitz' bizarre
Louis XIV defense makes for an embarrassing attempt at rebutting the charges.
@The
Voice In the Wilderness are inextricably linked to the deep state. They sold their
souls long ago. If it ever comes to be a choice between a Democratic President and the deep
state, Pelosi and Schiff will do the bidding of the deep state.
"They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda," the former official added. "They
were plotting to actually have him removed from office."
And Pelosi and Schiff are co-conspirators.
They should be arrested by the FBI for conspiring to overthrow the elected government.
Democrats may feel that anything goes to get rid of Trump, but forget that they could be
next. No Democrat would be safe from Deep state machinations.
It's time to purge the intelligence agencies of anyone doing anything but actual data
gathering and analysis.
@Roy
Blakeley
Their puppeteering strings reach into the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme
Court.
Our elections are designed to manufacture consent and prevent change. The last President
to take steps to rein in the overreach of the CIA component of the deep state is probably going
to be the only one to challenge on our permanent government in a serious manner.
God help Bernie, if he should manage to get through the DNC gauntlet to occupy the White
House!
#1 are
inextricably linked to the deep state. They sold their souls long ago. If it ever comes to
be a choice between a Democratic President and the deep state, Pelosi and Schiff will do
the bidding of the deep state.
this piece of information did catch my attention. Regardless of which "side" wins, plotting
to "remove them" from the moment they do take office is a horrendous precedent to set.
Get out the popcorn because this development is worth watching.
and i'm pretty sure that it was the NY/CIA times that brought the 'whistleblower story'.
t'was that stellar paper of record that also brought the 'trump means to leave NATO anonymous
military insiders report' which immediately spawned 'the NATO defense' bill, unanimous 'aye'
vote in the senate.
but no new witnesses permitted, dagnabbit, we won't hear from CIA ciarmarella. so here's
whassup according to CNN (they have mcConnell's resolution):
closing arguments will be heard on feb. 3 for four hours, and the court will reconvene on
feb. 5 for a vote.
lol; on the left sidebar is:
About the final vote : A tentative agreement has been made for the acquittal vote to be held
next week. Closing arguments for both sides would occur Monday through Wednesday. The vote
would occur Wednesday afternoon.
save your popcorn for wednesday?
this piece of information did catch my attention. Regardless of which "side" wins,
plotting to "remove them" from the moment they do take office is a horrendous precedent to
set.
Get out the popcorn because this development is worth watching.
a real whistleblower because he is not in federal prison and Rachael Madcow is not calling
for him to be executed. He's a tool in a beltway pissing match.
said Waters right after Trump was elected so they went looking for a reason to do just
that.
"They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda," the former official added. "They were
plotting to actually have him removed from office."
Sure lots of the witnessed said that Trump did the deed and withheld aid to Ukraine when the
dems were questioning them. But on cross exam from the republicans they all admitted that they
did not have first hand knowledge of Trump saying that. Why the GOP isn't hammering on this is
beyond me. They could run ad after ad of Sondland saying that it was hs 'presumption' that
Trump wanted that done.
They should be arrested by the FBI for conspiring to overthrow the elected government.
So far the justice department has held no one accountable for abusing the FISA court. Page
should never have had a warrant taken out on his because he was working with the CIA at the
time it was. Comey leaked his conversation with Trump because he wanted Rosenstein to appoint a
special prosecutor. Comey committed a few other crimes and yet the justice department said that
he will go scott free.
Horowitz basically said that what happened was beyond the pale, but then he walked most of
it back and said let's just let bygones be bygones.
SO it now comes down to Durham and Barr to give the country some justice. But does anyone
actually believe that Barr will be allowed to trash the reputation of the FBI or the CIA? Of
course not.
Then there's Trump who has continued to play along with this farce and farce it has been.
WHy hasn't he fired all of the Obama holdovers that have been working to take him down as Ron
Paul alluded to? Why is his personal mouthpiece, Rudy allowed to go on Fox Snooze and lay out
the case instead of working with prosecutors to bring it to the American people?
I am saying this has been a farce committed on the American people by both parties who agree
that Russia did interfere with the election although no one has shown just how the did that.
Facebook ads and Wikileaks emails? Puleese! The new Cold War with Russia has always been the
goal and the consequences of it have been very damaging to our first amendment rights and to
people's liberties. I am so disgusted that too many people can't see through what is happening.
Not here. Kudos again to the site for seeing it for what it was. Now how to wake up the ones
who think Putin is actually running the president and his party.
Examples:
We'll be fighting against everything an emboldened Trump -- and Putin -- throw at us. It
means we unify behind the Democratic candidate for president except Tulsi
Gabbard
People also believe that Vlad got Britains to vote for Brexit. Nothing like telling people
that they are too stupid to know what they are voting for.
Now Nancy should rescind the invitation to the State of the Union?
The GOP under orders from tRump/Putin are destroying everything in their path that holds
America together.
SMDH!! Seriously how can grown adults believe that?
Bolton is saying that Trump told him to get info on democrats though everyone involved in
the meeting deny it happened. Here's the part:
Over several pages, Mr. Bolton laid out Mr. Trump's fixation on Ukraine and the
president's belief, based on a mix of scattershot events, assertions and
outright conspiracy theories, that Ukraine tried to undermine his chances of winning the
presidency in 2016.
In 2014, Hunter joined the board of Burisma, which was then mired in a corruption
scandal . Authorities in Ukraine, Britain and the United States had opened investigations
into the company's operations. Mr. Zlochevsky had also been accused of marshaling
government contracts to companies he owned and embezzling public money.
At the time of his board appointment, the younger Mr. Biden had just been discharged
from the Navy Reserve for drug use. He had no apparent experience in Ukraine or natural
gas. And while accepting the board position was legal, it reportedly raised some eyebrows
in the Obama administration. The Burisma board position was lucrative: Mr. Biden received
payments that reached up to $50,000 per month.
(hmm no CT there)
"The server, they say Ukraine has it," Mr. Trump said, according to notes describing the
call.
There is no evidence to support Mr. Trump's assertions, which have spread widely
online.
Okay this part is not true. However there were numerous articles written in 2015 about how
people with ties to Hillary did try to derail Trump's election and they wrote how Ukraine now
having mud on their faces were worried about how Trump would work with them. As for the 'hit
job' on the US ambassador to Ukraine and getting her fired, that apparently happened a year
before Trump actually fired after word of her bad mouthing Trump got back to him. Don't people
serve at the pleasure of the president? And can't he have someone that works with him in place
instead of working against him? Yep.
Back to the book:
Mr. Trump also repeatedly made national security decisions contrary to American
interests,
Ahh yes back to Trump not sending weapons to Ukraine that can not be used on the front line
and are now still sitting in a warehouse in Kiev. But who decides US policy? And how did not
sending them weapons hurt national security? Oh yeah according to Schiff we have to fight the
Russian over there instead of fighting them here even though there hasn't been a lot of
fighting since 2014 or 15. But whatever. Now just imagine Russia overthrowing the president of
Mexico and installing a Russian friendly president and then tried to get him into whatever the
Russian federation is. Countries want Ukraine to become part of NATO. Yeah great idea. On
Russia's border. R2P in case Russia did something and wham we are off to WWIII.
The New York Times reported this week on another revelation from Mr. Bolton's book draft:
that Mr. Trump told him in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in
security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into
Democrats including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter.
Lots of reports that democrats were skimming tax paid funds meant for Ukraine into their
pockets including Biden taking $900,000 for his lobbying group. Pelosi's son was involved as
were some member of the GOP. If corruption happened I'd like the pres to look into it and
especially because of how bad the Ukraine economy is after Obama's brutal coup and the millions
there that are suffering. Maybe that's just me.
But how is this being interpreted?
That information includes how Donald Trump ordered Bolton to squeeze Ukrainian officials
for damaging slander of political opponents two months earlier than was known. T
And I'd like to send Bolton to Gitmo so he can review again his position that waterboarding
isn't torture. After about a dozen sessions he can tell us.
Trump has a lot of problems. One is trusting those neocon scum.
Bolton is saying that Trump told him to get info on democrats though everyone involved
in the meeting deny it happened. Here's the part:
Over several pages, Mr. Bolton laid out Mr. Trump's fixation on Ukraine and the
president's belief, based on a mix of scattershot events, assertions and
outright conspiracy theories, that Ukraine tried to undermine his chances of winning
the presidency in 2016.
In 2014, Hunter joined the board of Burisma, which was then mired in a corruption
scandal . Authorities in Ukraine, Britain and the United States had opened
investigations into the company's operations. Mr. Zlochevsky had also been accused of
marshaling government contracts to companies he owned and embezzling public money.
At the time of his board appointment, the younger Mr. Biden had just been discharged
from the Navy Reserve for drug use. He had no apparent experience in Ukraine or natural
gas. And while accepting the board position was legal, it reportedly raised some
eyebrows in the Obama administration. The Burisma board position was lucrative: Mr.
Biden received payments that reached up to $50,000 per month.
(hmm no CT there)
"The server, they say Ukraine has it," Mr. Trump said, according to notes describing
the call.
There is no evidence to support Mr. Trump's assertions, which have spread widely
online.
Okay this part is not true. However there were numerous articles written in 2015 about
how people with ties to Hillary did try to derail Trump's election and they wrote how
Ukraine now having mud on their faces were worried about how Trump would work with them. As
for the 'hit job' on the US ambassador to Ukraine and getting her fired, that apparently
happened a year before Trump actually fired after word of her bad mouthing Trump got back
to him. Don't people serve at the pleasure of the president? And can't he have someone that
works with him in place instead of working against him? Yep.
Back to the book:
Mr. Trump also repeatedly made national security decisions contrary to American
interests,
Ahh yes back to Trump not sending weapons to Ukraine that can not be used on the front
line and are now still sitting in a warehouse in Kiev. But who decides US policy? And how
did not sending them weapons hurt national security? Oh yeah according to Schiff we have to
fight the Russian over there instead of fighting them here even though there hasn't been a
lot of fighting since 2014 or 15. But whatever. Now just imagine Russia overthrowing the
president of Mexico and installing a Russian friendly president and then tried to get him
into whatever the Russian federation is. Countries want Ukraine to become part of NATO.
Yeah great idea. On Russia's border. R2P in case Russia did something and wham we are off
to WWIII.
The New York Times reported this week on another revelation from Mr. Bolton's book
draft: that Mr. Trump told him in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million
in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into
Democrats including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter.
Lots of reports that democrats were skimming tax paid funds meant for Ukraine into their
pockets including Biden taking $900,000 for his lobbying group. Pelosi's son was involved
as were some member of the GOP. If corruption happened I'd like the pres to look into it
and especially because of how bad the Ukraine economy is after Obama's brutal coup and the
millions there that are suffering. Maybe that's just me.
But how is this being interpreted?
That information includes how Donald Trump ordered Bolton to squeeze Ukrainian
officials for damaging slander of political opponents two months earlier than was known.
T
i've gotten my tit into a time wringer, as they say around here (and if you've ever had that
happen while using an electric wringer washer, you'll know what i mean). the stack of mending
near the sewing machine had reached critical mass, then mr. wd had come home for lunch with
nuttin' scavenged from the fridge and so on.
by now, having been awake again since 3:30, i need some rest. back later.
(Signed, the former bald avian, now flying under the radar).
i've gotten my tit into a time wringer, as they say around here (and if you've ever had
that happen while using an electric wringer washer, you'll know what i mean). the stack of
mending near the sewing machine had reached critical mass, then mr. wd had come home for
lunch with nuttin' scavenged from the fridge and so on.
by now, having been awake again since 3:30, i need some rest. back later.
Back in November 2019, the whistleblower's handlers were trying to hide hisidentity so
people wouldn't realize Eric Ciaramella, National Security Council member, had an office in the
Obama White House during the final year of Obama's presidency. While there, Ciaramella was
involved in Ukraine's meddling in the US Presidential Election, on behalf of Hillary
Clinton.
This past December, 2019, the Democrats were puffing up with the urgency of finding the
right impeachment charge to wage against President Trump -- one that sounded like a real crime
people can envision.
Just a few blocks away, Judicial Watch was pouring over FOIA docs and analyzing the 2016
Obama White House visitor logs that had just arrived. The visitor logs revealed frequent
meetings between CIA operative Eric Ciaramella and a parade of State Department spooks who were
operating in Ukraine. Other frequent visitors included the Soros-funded social engineers and
marginal Ukrainian officials who were running their various cons and payoffs in both
countries.
Ciaramella began operating out of the White House in 2015 -- and continued through 2016,
when he Russia Hoax was hatched. He returned to the CIA when the Trump administration arrived
in 2017. There, we loose track of him until summer of 2019, when he would turn up transformed
into a whistleblower of hearsay, frightened for his life because he had overheard someone
talking about a banal conversation that President Trump had with another President on the
telephone. I don't think anyone felt very threatened.
The 2016 White House logs reveal a much clearer picture of the political shenanigans
Ciaramella was engaged in. The logs reveal frequent meetings with Alexandra Chalupa, a
contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election. Chalupa would later coordinated with
corrupt Ukrainian officials to smuggle evidence to the US that could be used against President
Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. It was going to be a very important election
year, filled with spying and lying and geopolitical chaos. Chalupa would visit the White House
27 times that year.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella
while he was detailed to the Obama White House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption
Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She visited on December 9, 2015. (The Hill reported that in
April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, "took
the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of
both the U.S. aid and (AntAC).")
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia
program coordinator at Soros funded Open Society Foundations . She visited on March 16,
2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to
then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016
and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist.
She is also the wife of State Department Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both
March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January
19, 2016.On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported that the then-U.S. ambassador to
Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was
with the State Department's policy planning staff where specialized in Russia and Ukraine
issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of the signatories to the
Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26,
2015.
Victoria Nuland : who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and
Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered documents revealing Nuland had an extensive
involvement with Clinton-funded dossier. Judicial Watch also released documents revealing
that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of classified
Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of
Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19,
2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the
Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
.
By the middle of the 2016, according to the White House visitor logs, Alexandra Chalupa,
then a DNC contractor, was setting up her own meetings in the White House. On May 4, 2016,
Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative
journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine. The Trump campaign was being spied on by then, and
in a few months the scheme to cast suspicion on Trump because Manafort had consulted years
earlier with Ukraine's 'ethnic-Russian' President, snapped into place. The unholy ghost of faux
Russian collusion was born in the summer of 2016, and it would haunt America, and cripple it
intellectually, for many long years to come.
The timing was such that this evidence of election sabotage in 2016 happened to surfaced in
the midst of the impeachment hearings in December 2019. In announcing the evidence,
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statemen t:
Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional questions
about the Obama administration, Ukraine and the related impeachment scheme targeting
President Trump. Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings
documented in these visitor logs.
.
These are not the impeachment witnesses that the Democrats had in mind.
"We don't look at sites that debunk what we believe to be the truth." Kinda like consortium
news, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald and every one else who has debunked every damn thing about
Russia Gate.
Careful there, Pluto, any criticism of Soros is anti Semitic. So what if he has been behind
all the violent color revolutions he's off limits for criticism. Yup....
Also that little black book that Alexandra found that was tied to Paul Manafort was never
verified that it did. No matter...he did bad things. Like tried to get the Ukraine president to
accept the EU deal instead of the Russia was offering.
Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Karma baby!
These are not the impeachment witnesses that the Democrats had in mind.
Would the republicans have called for those witnesses if it had ever gotten that far? I'm
sure that if we know what we do then the republicans know it too. Lindsay was going to have
Biden testify, but then he changed his mind and wanted him protected.
In addition to the brutal coup it was a crime spree where lots of people had their sticky
fingers in the money pie. Lots of money laundering happened with that money meant for the
Ukraine people who are suffering with economy problems since it happened. I was hoping that
this information would come out, but now I wonder if it would have even mattered to the people
who have had their minds made up since they first heard about this?
Or do they not know how exposed they are?
Back in November 2019, the whistleblower's handlers were trying to hide hisidentity so
people wouldn't realize Eric Ciaramella, National Security Council member, had an office in
the Obama White House during the final year of Obama's presidency. While there, Ciaramella
was involved in Ukraine's meddling in the US Presidential Election, on behalf of Hillary
Clinton.
This past December, 2019, the Democrats were puffing up with the urgency of finding the
right impeachment charge to wage against President Trump -- one that sounded like a real
crime people can envision.
Just a few blocks away, Judicial Watch was pouring over FOIA docs and analyzing the 2016
Obama White House visitor logs that had just arrived. The visitor logs revealed frequent
meetings between CIA operative Eric Ciaramella and a parade of State Department spooks who
were operating in Ukraine. Other frequent visitors included the Soros-funded social
engineers and marginal Ukrainian officials who were running their various cons and payoffs
in both countries.
Ciaramella began operating out of the White House in 2015 -- and continued through 2016,
when he Russia Hoax was hatched. He returned to the CIA when the Trump administration
arrived in 2017. There, we loose track of him until summer of 2019, when he would turn up
transformed into a whistleblower of hearsay, frightened for his life because he had
overheard someone talking about a banal conversation that President Trump had with another
President on the telephone. I don't think anyone felt very threatened.
The 2016 White House logs reveal a much clearer picture of the political shenanigans
Ciaramella was engaged in. The logs reveal frequent meetings with Alexandra Chalupa, a
contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election. Chalupa would later coordinated with
corrupt Ukrainian officials to smuggle evidence to the US that could be used against
President Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. It was going to be a very
important election year, filled with spying and lying and geopolitical chaos. Chalupa would
visit the White House 27 times that year.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric
Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption
Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She visited on December 9, 2015. (The Hill reported
that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in
Kiev, "took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its
investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC).")
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the
Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded Open Society Foundations . She visited on
March 16, 2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to
then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. She visited on both January 15,
2016 and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia
specialist. She is also the wife of State Department Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She
visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on
January 19, 2016.On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported that the then-U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time
was with the State Department's policy planning staff where specialized in Russia and
Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of the
signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He
visited on October 26, 2015.
Victoria Nuland : who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and
Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered documents revealing Nuland had an
extensive involvement with Clinton-funded dossier. Judicial Watch also released documents
revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of
classified Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress
within hours of Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19,
2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the
Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
.
By the middle of the 2016, according to the White House visitor logs, Alexandra Chalupa,
then a DNC contractor, was setting up her own meetings in the White House. On May 4, 2016,
Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to
investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine. The Trump campaign was being
spied on by then, and in a few months the scheme to cast suspicion on Trump because
Manafort had consulted years earlier with Ukraine's 'ethnic-Russian' President, snapped
into place. The unholy ghost of faux Russian collusion was born in the summer of 2016, and
it would haunt America, and cripple it intellectually, for many long years to come.
The timing was such that this evidence of election sabotage in 2016 happened to surfaced
in the midst of the impeachment hearings in December 2019. In announcing the evidence,
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statemen t:
Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional
questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine and the related impeachment scheme
targeting President Trump. Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about
the meetings documented in these visitor logs.
.
These are not the impeachment witnesses that the Democrats had in mind.
But, I follow evidence. And they document the evidence.
How they interpret it is a problem. They have no 'First Principle' to guide them.
@snoopydawg
As for witnesses, there is so much askew here that I am beginning to think the DC people are
hopeless.
Like, do the Republicans know that Eric Ciaramella is dating Adam Schiff's daughter?
Do they know that Members of Parliament have been trying to confess in detail to what they
did to rig the 2016 US elections? They did a lot of stuff. It's crazy,
"We don't look at sites that debunk what we believe to be the truth." Kinda like
consortium news, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald and every one else who has debunked every damn
thing about Russia Gate.
Careful there, Pluto, any criticism of Soros is anti Semitic. So what if he has been
behind all the violent color revolutions he's off limits for criticism. Yup....
Also that little black book that Alexandra found that was tied to Paul Manafort was
never verified that it did. No matter...he did bad things. Like tried to get the Ukraine
president to accept the EU deal instead of the Russia was offering.
Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Karma baby!
These are not the impeachment witnesses that the Democrats had in mind.
Would the republicans have called for those witnesses if it had ever gotten that far?
I'm sure that if we know what we do then the republicans know it too. Lindsay was going to
have Biden testify, but then he changed his mind and wanted him protected.
In addition to the brutal coup it was a crime spree where lots of people had their
sticky fingers in the money pie. Lots of money laundering happened with that money meant
for the Ukraine people who are suffering with economy problems since it happened. I was
hoping that this information would come out, but now I wonder if it would have even
mattered to the people who have had their minds made up since they first heard about
this?
But, I follow evidence. And they document the evidence.
Is Adam's daughter really dating Eric? Literally LMAO.
But I did know that Ukraine has opened an investigation into Biden and son. Hopefully they
will get to exposing all of the people involved in the corruption from both parties.
But, I follow evidence. And they document the evidence.
How they interpret it is a problem. They have no 'First Principle' to guide them.
#7.1
As for witnesses, there is so much askew here that I am beginning to think the DC people
are hopeless.
Like, do the Republicans know that Eric Ciaramella is dating Adam Schiff's daughter?
Do they know that Members of Parliament have been trying to confess in detail to what
they did to rig the 2016 US elections? They did a lot of stuff. It's crazy,
The holes in the
Democrats' impeachment case were apparent from the start, and the House proceedings and
Senate trial brought them to the fore. The lone witness who communicated with Trump about the
frozen military funding to Ukraine -- and, even more crucially, the only Trump official
thought to have relayed a quid pro quo to the Ukrainian side -- is EU Ambassador Gordon
Sondland. But Sondland testified that the link between aid and the opening of investigations
was only his " presumption" and that he had communicated this presumption only in
passing. Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, Foreign Minister
Vadym Prystaiko, and Zelensky aide Andriy Yermak, have all said that they saw no ties between
the frozen funding and pressure to open investigations.
In the face of rejections by top Ukrainian officials of his core allegation, Schiff has
LIED mischaracterized the available evidence and engaged in supposition. Sondland,
according to Schiff's account, told Yermak, " You ain't getting the money until you do the
investigations." But both Sondland and Yermak offer a radically different account. According
to Sondland, he told Yermak in "a very, very brief pull-aside conversation," that he "didn't
know exactly why" the military funding was held up, and that its linkage to opening an
investigation was only his "personal presumption" in the absence of an explanation from
Trump. Yermak does not even recall the issue of the frozen aid being mentioned.
and now all you brainiacs with huge memory head spaces are giving us homework? can i rent
some of yours?
way-ull. there seems to be some disagreement as to the additional witnesses. ooopsie:
update: roll call's impeachment news
roundup says: Senate votes against motion to call witnesses
Updated 5:43 p.m.
The Senate is in recess after a motion to call witnesses at the impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump was unsuccessful Friday evening, on a 49-51 vote.
murkowski and collins wanted to hear from john bolton, but now the arguments slide into if,
and how much time, to allot for closing arguments. so who knows how long it will drag on?
didn't see anything about #ciarmarella, sadly. guess that un's a Dead Duck?
but wasn't it great that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court let it slip that EC IS the
CIA whistleblower? file under: Ooopsie.
Chief Justice Roberts said he wouldn't read any questions that outed the whistleblower - and
his very refusal outed the whistleblower.
and now all you brainiacs with huge memory head spaces are giving us homework? can i
rent some of yours?
way-ull. there seems to be some disagreement as to the additional witnesses. ooopsie:
update: roll call's impeachment news
roundup says: Senate votes against motion to call witnesses
Updated 5:43 p.m.
The Senate is in recess after a motion to call witnesses at the impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump was unsuccessful Friday evening, on a 49-51 vote.
murkowski and collins wanted to hear from john bolton, but now the arguments slide into
if, and how much time, to allot for closing arguments. so who knows how long it will drag
on? didn't see anything about #ciarmarella, sadly. guess that un's a Dead Duck?
but wasn't it great that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court let it slip that EC IS
the CIA whistleblower? file under: Ooopsie.
@wendy
davis
vindictiveness will lead to a purge at the CIA. They seem way more involved in domestic
politics than foreign intelligence gathering.
and now all you brainiacs with huge memory head spaces are giving us homework? can i
rent some of yours?
way-ull. there seems to be some disagreement as to the additional witnesses. ooopsie:
update: roll call's impeachment news
roundup says: Senate votes against motion to call witnesses
Updated 5:43 p.m.
The Senate is in recess after a motion to call witnesses at the impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump was unsuccessful Friday evening, on a 49-51 vote.
murkowski and collins wanted to hear from john bolton, but now the arguments slide into
if, and how much time, to allot for closing arguments. so who knows how long it will drag
on? didn't see anything about #ciarmarella, sadly. guess that un's a Dead Duck?
but wasn't it great that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court let it slip that EC IS
the CIA whistleblower? file under: Ooopsie.
Ukrainian nationalists serve as the Trojan horse of neoliberal globalization and fleecing the
nation by international corporations and institutions. Ukraine now is a deft slave.
Like A Canadian identity amounted to 'we're not American', Ukrainian identity is limited to
"We are not Russians".
Putting yourself in the mind of someone who commits an act of illegality is perhaps the only
way we can begin to understand the motivation behind the transgression. A common reflex
reaction to the most heinous of crimes is to simply call for the perpetrator to be removed from
society and put in prison. Out of sight, out of mind. Whilst this is not an unreasonable
expectation, it does not get to the root of why he or she became a criminal.
We can take a similar stance when it comes to globalism. If a self appointed elite who
permeate institutions like the Bank for International Settlements and the IMF share a desire to
concentrate world power through a centralized network of global governance, rather than simply
rebel against this vision is it not equally as important to try and understand the vision from
the perspective of those who created it? I would argue that to comprehend the minds of global
planners it is necessary to mentally place yourself into their way of thinking.
A couple of years ago I published an article called,
Order Out of Chaos: A Look at the Trilateral Commission , where I examined some of the key
motivations behind this particular institution's goals. I quoted past members of the Commission
openly rejecting national sovereignty and championing the interdependence of nations. One of
those quotes was from Sadako Ogata, a former member of the Trilateral Commission's Executive
Committee, who at an event to mark 25 years of the institution remarked how ' international
interdependence requires new and more intensive forms of international cooperation to
counteract economic and political nationalism '.
Shortly after the Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973, one of its members, Richard
Gardner, wrote an essay for Foreign Affairs magazine (the official publication of the Council
on Foreign Relations). In ' The Hard Road to
World Order ' , Gardner emphasised the objective of dismantling national sovereignty:
In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than
from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William
James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it
piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
With Britain in the process of leaving the European Union, you could argue that one of the
main planks of the Commission's agenda has failed. If the global elite want the integration of
European nations, and for the majority of those nations to be controlled through a centralised
behemoth like the EU, surely seeing the UK become independent from the union goes against
everything they believe in? Not necessarily.
Back in 2014 and before globalists began touting political protectionism / nationalism as a
danger to financial stability, the Trilateral Commission published a paper called,' Credible
European Governance '. Within the paper the UK's membership of the single market is
discussed, an issue which has been central to the narrative on Brexit since the referendum:
A debate on competences has been launched by the British government on Britain's future
position in Europe where reference is made to the Single Market. Today, most EU countries
accept that the euro area represents what President Van Rompuy calls the "symbolic heart of
the European Union". For the United Kingdom, the single market is the essence of the EU. Can
these two visions continue to coexist within the EU, now that the euro area is surmounting
its "existential crisis"?
I asked in 2017 whether this passage in particular was not only questioning the UK's
position inside the single market, but by extension it's membership of the European Union. It
was the same paper that quoted Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European
Union:
People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity
when crisis is upon them.
As I have discussed in previous articles, this philosophy gives credence to the theory that
crisis scenarios, rather than being a detriment to the aspirations of globalists, present an
opportunity to further their grip on power.
At the latter end of 2015, just months before the EU referendum, the Commission produced
another paper conceived by four David Rockefeller fellows – ' EUROPE'S NEW NORMAL:
SIMULTANEOUS CRISES THAT THREATEN TO UNRAVEL THE EU '. The authors wrote at length about
the growing distrust of ' ever closer union ' following the European debt crisis that
originated after the collapse of Lehman Brothers:
Many Europeans have come to suspect that the EU's institutions have become overly powerful
and some think that they have even used the latest crises for a further power grab.
A solution put forward by the fellows was that ' some flow into the opposite direction might
help Europeans to regain trust in the European process '.
One interpretation of this remark is that countries be granted a platform to express their
grievances with the European Union, perhaps even to the point of seeking renewed independence
or opting to withdraw from the bloc altogether. From their own perspective the union desires
a sharing of sovereignty rather than individual expressions of it. Therefore, a nation
instigating a greater level of autonomy (dubbed protectionism / populism in some quarters)
might eventually suffer lasting consequences given the steadfast and federalist nature of the
supranational EU. Over time countries demonstrating more nationalistic tendencies could quite
easily unravel into crisis. Especially if separation from the union results in a nation being
compromised economically. In this scenario, might those same Europeans opposed to further
integration become more receptive to the idea?
The ultimate question then is whether the outbreak of a 'crisis' is organic, in the sense
that it happens beyond the control of government and globalist institutions. Or whether
instances such as Brexit were designed to happen to further the agenda for more power. You
may ask why the UK would be permitted to leave the EU when the objective is for ' ever closer
union '. But without Brexit and further instances of a rise in ' populism ', calls for reform
have no traction. Crisis must either originate or be instigated to achieve the desired
response from the electorate. Calling for reform inside a vacuum of no discernible unrest on
a geopolitical level leaves institutions like the EU exposed to greater scrutiny.
Here, Chatham House observed that ' the process of globalization demanded that all states
adapt to being part of a shared project and subject themselves to its norms and laws ', and
that ' the European Union became the vanguard of this process of post‑nationalism .'
They identified that European identity was essentially anti-nationalist in nature. But the
growth of nationalism witnessed throughout Europe over the past five years has distorted this
belief. Combating it will require ' investing over the coming years in the legitimacy of major
international institutions such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and the
International Monetary Fund .'
According to Chatham House, without investment, ' these institutions will find they are
increasingly ineffective .' In short, the advent of a new wave of nationalism has created a
narrative that global bodies will require more power to shore up both trade and economic
stability now and into the future.
At the same time this article was published, it was announced at the World Economic Forum
that businessman George Soros is to launch a ' global network of
higher education ' against nationalism , with investment of $1 billion. By coincidence or
otherwise, Chatham House is involved in the initiative. Here is what Soros himself said about
it:
I believe that as a long-term strategy our best hope lies in access to quality education,
specifically an education that reinforces the autonomy of the individual by cultivating
critical thinking and emphasising academic freedom.
The tide turned against open societies after the crash of 2008 because it constituted a
failure of international co-operation. This in turn led to the rise of nationalism, the great
enemy of open society.
But is a resurgence of nationalism really the ' great enemy ' that Soros makes out, given
that crisis on a global scale invariably leads to opportunity? One example is from an op-ed
written by former IMF Deputy Director Mohamed A. El-Erian, who in 2017 questioned whether a
rise in populism and nationalism throughout the world could be remedied by revamping the IMF's
Special Drawing Rights:
So, do today's anti-globalisation winds – caused in part by poor global policy
coordination in the context of too many years of low and insufficiently inclusive growth
– create scope for enhancing the SDR's role and potential contributions?
We have seen as well how the EU and the World Trade Organisation have
presented proposals for the wide scale reformation of the WTO in the wake of renewed
nationalism. And as regular readers will know, central banks led by the BIS and IMF are rapidly
advancing plans to reform global payment systems and introduce digital currencies. These were
not public considerations prior to the likes of Brexit. They only started to gather momentum
after nationalism became a permanent fixture on the geopolitical landscape.
The overriding sentiment from globalists has been that a combination of political and
economic protectionism is a direct threat to financial stability. The IMF, the BIS and the
World Bank have all over recent months been ramping up warnings about the dangers of an
impending economic downturn. Two weeks ago the IMF's new Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva
commented at the Peterson Institute of International Economics in Washington :
We have to learn the lessons of history while adapting them for our times. We know that
excessive inequality hinders growth and hollows out a country's foundations. It erodes trust
within society and institutions. It can fuel populism and political upheaval.
Now is the time to put yourself into the mind of a globalist. Whether it be the Innovation
BIS 2025 project or the UN's Agenda 2030 sustainability goals, what circumstances would benefit
these people the most in furthering their ambitions? What would have to occur for the elite to
gain widespread public support for policies that would fundamentally change our way of life? If
an increased break out of trade protectionism and political populism triggered an economic
collapse, would this impair the autonomy of global institutions? Or would it serve to
reinvigorate them in the sense of scapegoating nationalism as being responsible for the rupture
of the ' rules based global order ' founded after World War Two?
From a globalist perspective, national sovereignty – the independent nation state
– has no place in an interconnected world. It is an outmoded concept. The goal is always
to further centralise power. But by what means exactly?
Recall what Richard Gardner said back in 1974: ' an end run around national sovereignty,
eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault
.'
The institutions cited in this article are not ignorant to the plight of the global economy.
The policies enacted since 2008, from near zero interest rates and trillions of dollars in
quantitative easing measures to rising interest rates and quantitative tightening, has brought
the financial system to where it is today.
Central banks know perfectly well the effect their policies have on the health of economies
, evidenced by comments from Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell back in 2012:
Right now, we are buying the market, effectively, and private capital will begin to leave
that activity and find something else to do. So when it is time for us to sell, or even to
stop buying, the response could be quite strong; there is every reason to expect a strong
response.
Meanwhile, we look like we are blowing a fixed-income duration bubble right across the
credit spectrum that will result in big losses when rates come up down the road. You can
almost say that that is our strategy.
From a UK standpoint, the country's departure from the EU may appear on the surface to be
rallying against the tide of globalism. But my concern is that globalists will successfully
manage to position Brexit and the spectre of a global trade conflict as causes for an economic
collapse, when in fact it is monetary policy over the last twelve years which will be the
primary culprit.
Rather than heavy handedly marching into western nations and claiming their sovereignty, I
would be concerned that the global elite will allow nationalist movements to fall on their own
sword, and for the onset of a series of crises to consume geopolitics throughout the next
decade. The job then would be to implement a whole raft of reforms and to educate the next
generation on the perils of self determination.
The realisation of a ' new world order ' means tearing down existing structures, or at the
very least jeopardising them to the point of collapse, to facilitate the new. Out of resurgent
nationalism may come a swathe of centralised directives that make today's level of
globalisation seem tame by comparison.
Depends on your definitions. But although the elites prefer the bigger cartel to run, with
no competition on tax levels and freedoms, they are also quiet happy for nationalistic, flag
waving, I'm happy to die for my country and **** them others nationalism. These wars of the
past were pretty profitable for those whipping up the masses. And it is an easy scape goat if
you have ruined and plundered the economy.
They are not going to take the blame themselves for the economic disaster taking place
after extracting trillions out of the hands of citizens for a green new deal.
Foreigners are easy to blame. With globalism, who will they blame?
As repellent as Trump and his policies are, the Democrats' impeachment bid deserves to fail
because they did not attempt to impeach Bush II, whose offences were far graver.
My prediction: Trump will beat the impeachment. If Bernie were, by a miracle, to get the
nomination, he could beat him. If the Democratic establishment scuppers Bernie in favour of a
right-wing Democrat who offers little to blue-collar workers, their chance of winning will be
slim. HRC, as a war-and-Wall Street type, would surely go down like a lead balloon with the
'battlers'.
"... This gave meaning to the quote from Larry Johnson from "Intelligence: The Human Factor" by Col Lang. "Be quick to ask ask why and insist on hard empirical evidence to corroborate or refute a statement claimed as fact. Hopefully, you will discover that National Security is not based on on deploying the the most technologically sophisticated metal detector or hiring new thousands of new specialists -- but on freedom and " the rule of law". The freedoms we enjoy belong to citizens who know their rights and understand how their government works." ..."
I agree with you. I saw elements of the color
revolution that the previous administration used to destabilize governments being used in the
U.S. at that time. It seems the man behind the curtain is using skilled rhetoric, linguistics,
NLP, persuasion principles and hypnosis tactics. These tactics are are also pointedly being
used, to get around the law and and any meaningful accountability. This appears to being done
in a coordinated, organized and continuous method.
This gave meaning to the quote from Larry Johnson from "Intelligence: The Human Factor" by
Col Lang. "Be quick to ask ask why and insist on hard empirical evidence to corroborate or
refute a statement claimed as fact. Hopefully, you will discover that National Security is not
based on on deploying the the most technologically sophisticated metal detector or hiring new
thousands of new specialists -- but on freedom and " the rule of law". The freedoms we enjoy
belong to citizens who know their rights and understand how their government works."
This Youtube breakdown of Adam Schiff's closing statement, gives insight into some of the
tactics I am speaking of, better than I could explain it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U0ipS5gjmDc
"... A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it." ..."
"... Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid . ..."
"... The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change. ..."
"... The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle. ..."
"... the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. ..."
"... The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. ..."
"... But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day." ..."
"... Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement. ..."
"... And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth." ..."
"... One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000. ..."
"... Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world ..."
"... At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad. ..."
There was a time not so long ago, before President Donald Trump's surprise decision early this year to liquidate the Iranian commander
Qassem Soleimani, when it appeared that America's neoconservatives were floundering. The president was itching to withdraw U.S. forces
from Afghanistan. He was staging exuberant photo-ops with a beaming Kim Jong Un. He was reportedly willing to hold talks with the
president of Iran, while clearly preferring trade wars to hot ones.
Indeed, this past summer, Trump's anti-interventionist supporters in the conservative media were riding high. When he refrained
from attacking Iran in June after it shot down an American drone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson
declared , "Donald Trump was elected president precisely to keep us out of disaster like war with Iran." Carlson went on to condemn
the hawks in Trump's Cabinet and their allies, who he claimed were egging the president on -- familiar names to anyone who has followed
the decades-long neoconservative project of aggressively using military force to topple unfriendly regimes and project American power
over the globe. "So how did we get so close to starting [a war]?"
he asked. "One of [the hawks'] key allies is the national security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend
of Bill Kristol's. Together they helped plan the Iraq War."
By the time Trump met with Kim in late June, becoming the first sitting president to set foot on North Korean soil, Bolton was
on the outs. Carlson was on the president's North Korean junket, while Trump's national security adviser was in Mongolia. "John Bolton
is absolutely a hawk,"
Trump
told NBC in June. "If it was up to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time, OK?" In September, Bolton was fired.
The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had made clear his distaste for the neocons' belligerent approach to global affairs,
much to the neocons' own entitled chagrin. As recently as December, Bolton, now outside the tent pissing in, was hammering Trump
for "bluffing" through an announcement that the administration wanted North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. "The
idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on North Korea is just unfortunately not true,"
Bolton told Axios . Then Trump ordered the drone
strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were
reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former
CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's
"decisive action." It was Carlson
who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades,"
Carlson said . "They
still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the
national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet
another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals
in the region -- a central part of his
2020 reelection bid
.
The anti-interventionist right is freaking out. Writing in American Greatness, Matthew Boose
declared , "[T]he Trump movement, which was generated out of opposition to the foreign policy blob and its endless wars, was
revealed this week to have been co-opted to a great extent by neoconservatives seeking regime change." James Antle, the editor of
The American Conservative, a publication founded in 2002 to oppose the Iraq War,
asked , "Did
Trump betray the anti-war right?"
In the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation.
Their concerns are not unmerited. The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign
policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien,
Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian
Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators
Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked
up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with
Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In
June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian
opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? --
regime change.
The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind
Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of
war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by
causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle.
Donald Trump has not dragged us into war with Iran (yet). But the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual
complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its
hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in
the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even
if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant
of the Oval Office.
But there was a time when the neoconservative coalition was not so entrenched -- and what has turned out to be its provisional
state of exile lends some critical insight into how it managed to hang around respectable policymaking circles in recent years, and
how it may continue to shape American foreign policy for the foreseeable future. When the neoconservatives came on the scene in the
late 1960s, the Republican old guard viewed them as interlopers. The neocons, former Trotskyists turned liberals who broke with the
Democratic Party over its perceived weakness on the Cold War, stormed the citadel of Republican ideology by emphasizing the relationship
between ideas and political reality. Irving Kristol, one of the original neoconservatives,
mused in 1985 that " what communists call the theoretical organs always end up through a filtering process influencing a lot
of people who don't even know they're being influenced. In the end, ideas rule the world because even interests are defined by ideas."
At pivotal moments in modern American foreign policy, the neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies
that might once have seemed outré. Jeane Kirkpatrick's seminal 1979 essay in Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards,"
essentially set forth the lineaments of the Reagan doctrine. She assailed Jimmy Carter for attacking friendly authoritarian leaders
such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza. She contended that authoritarian regimes might molt into democracies,
while totalitarian regimes would remain impregnable to outside influence, American or otherwise. Ronald Reagan read the essay and
liked it. He named Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations, where she became the most influential neocon of the era for
her denunciations of Arab regimes and defenses of Israel. Her tenure was also defined by the notion that it was perfectly acceptable
for America to cozy up to noxious regimes, from apartheid South Africa to the shah's Iran, as part of the greater mission to oppose
the red menace.
The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré.
There was always tension between Reagan's affinity for authoritarian regimes and his hard-line opposition to Communist ones. His
sunny persona never quite gelled with Kirkpatrick's more gelid view that communism was an immutable force, and in 1982, in a major
speech to the British Parliament at Westminster emphasizing the power of democracy and free speech, he declared his intent to end
the Cold War on American terms. As Reagan's second term progressed and democracy and free speech actually took hold in the waning
days of the Soviet Union, many hawks declared that it was all a sham. Indeed, not a few neocons were livid, claiming that Reagan
was appeasing the Soviet Union. But after the USSR collapsed, they retroactively blessed him as the anti-Communist warrior par excellence
and the model for the future. The right was now a font of happy talk about the dawn of a new age of liberty based on free-market
economics and American firepower.
The fall of communism, in other words, set the stage for a new neoconservative paradigm. Francis Fukuyama's The End of History
appeared a decade after Kirkpatrick's essay in Commentary and just before the Berlin Wall was breached on November 9,
1989. Here was a sharp break with the saturnine, realpolitik approach that Kirkpatrick had championed. Irving Kristol regarded it
as hopelessly utopian -- "I don't believe a word of it," he wrote in a response to Fukuyama. But a younger generation of neocons,
led by Irving's son, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, embraced it. Fukuyama argued that Western, liberal democracy, far from being
menaced, was now the destination point of the train of world history. With communism vanquished, the neocons, bearing the good word
from Fukuyama, formulated a new goal: democracy promotion, by force if necessary, as a way to hasten history and secure the global
order with the U.S. at its head. The first Gulf War in 1991, precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, tested the neocons'
resolve and led to a break in the GOP -- one that would presage the rise of Donald Trump. For decades, Patrick Buchanan had been
regularly inveighing against what he came to call the neocon "
amen corner" in and around the
Washington centers of power, including A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, both of whom endorsed the '91 Gulf War. The neocons
were frustrated by the measured approach taken by George H.W. Bush. He refused to crow about the fall of the Berlin Wall and kicked
the Iraqis out of Kuwait but declined to invade Iraq and "finish the job," as his hawkish critics would later put it. Buchanan then
ran for the presidency in 1992 on an America First platform, reviving a paleoconservative tradition that would partly inform Trump's
dark horse run in 2016.
But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy
wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert
Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently
pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian
fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In
his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen
stated , "Creative destruction
is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day."
We all know the painful consequences of the neocons' obsession with creative destruction. In his second inaugural address, three
and a half years after 9/11, George W. Bush cemented
neoconservative ideology into presidential doctrine: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of
democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The neocons'
hubris had already turned into nemesis in Iraq, paving the way for an anti-war candidate in Barack Obama.
But it was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell. He announced
his Buchananesque policy of "America First" in a speech at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in 2016, signaling that he would not adhere
to the long-standing Reaganite principles that had animated the party establishment.
The pooh-bahs of the GOP openly declared their disdain and revulsion for Trump, leading directly to the rise of the Never Trump
movement, which was dominated by neocons. The Never Trumpers ended up functioning as an informal blacklist for Trump once he became
president. Elliott Abrams, for example, who was being touted for deputy secretary of state in February 2017, was rejected when Steve
Bannon alerted Trump to his earlier heresies (though he later reemerged, in January 2019, as Trump's special envoy to Venezuela,
where he has pushed for regime change). Not a few other members of the Republican foreign policy establishment suffered similar fates.
Kristol's The Weekly Standard, which had held the neoconservative line through the Bush years and beyond , folded
in 2018. Even the office building that used to house the American Enterprise Institute and the Standard, on the corner of
17th and M streets in Washington, has been torn down, leaving an empty, boarded-up site whose symbolism speaks for itself.
Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued
to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers
in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have
done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the
movement.
It was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell.
But other neocons -- the ones who want to wield positions of influence and might -- have, more often than not, been able to hold
their noses. Stephen Wertheim, writing in The New York Review of Books, has perceptively dubbed this faction the anti-globalist
neocons. Led by John Bolton, they believe Trump performed a godsend by elevating the term globalism "from a marginal slur
to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics,"
Wertheim argued . The U.S. need not
bother with pesky multilateral institutions or international agreements or the entire postwar order, for that matter -- it's now
America's way or the highway.
And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian,
and Iraq War–era figures like
David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser,
the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't
care less if they negotiate,"
he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize
the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former
editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review ,
rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle
for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding
from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White
House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is
a myth."
In other words, whether the neocons themselves are occupying top positions in the Trump administration is almost irrelevant. The
ideology itself has reemerged to a degree that even Trump himself seems hard pressed to resist it -- if he even wants to.
How were the neocons able to influence another Republican presidency, one that was ostensibly dedicated to curbing their sway?
One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the
tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of
gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for
example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away"
from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. The event was hosted by Michael Doran, a
former senior director on George W. Bush's National Security Council and a senior fellow at the institute, who
wrote in
The New York Times on January 3, "The United States has no choice, if it seeks to stay in the Middle East, but to check
Iran's military power on the ground." Then there's Jamie M. Fly, a former staffer to Senator Marco Rubio who was appointed this past
August to head Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; he previously co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs contending that it isn't enough to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities: "If the United States seriously considers military action,
it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially
resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all."
Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has
popped up to warn Trump against
trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle
East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any
others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War
and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000.
But there are plenty of institutions in Washington, and neoconservatism's seemingly inescapable influence cannot be chalked up
to the swamp alone. Some etiolated form of what might be called Ledeenism lingered on before taking on new life at the outset of
the Trump administration. Trump's overt animus toward Muslims, for example, meant that figures such as Frank Gaffney, who opposed
arms-control treaties with Moscow as a member of the Reagan administration and resigned in protest of the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty, achieved a new prominence. During the Obama administration, Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy,
claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the White House and National Security Agency.
Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a
creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world: "We're in a world
war against a messianic mass movement of evil people." It was one of many signs that Trump was susceptible to ideas of a civilizational
battle against
"Islamo-fascism,"
which Norman Podhoretz and other neocons argued, in the wake of 9/11, would lead to World War III. In their millenarian ardor
and inflexible support for Israel, the neocons find themselves in a position precisely cognate to evangelical Christians -- both
groups of true believers trying to enact their vision through an apostate. But perhaps the neoconservatives' greatest strength lies
in the realm of ideas that Irving Kristol identified more than three decades ago. The neocons remain the winners of that battle,
not because their policies have made the world or the U.S. more secure, but by default -- because there are so few genuinely alternative
ideas that are championed with equal zeal. The foreign policy discussion surrounding Soleimani's killing -- which accelerated Iran's
nuclear weapons program, diminished America's influence in the Middle East, and entrenched Iran's theocratic regime -- has largely
occurred on a spectrum of the neocons' making. It is a discussion that accepts premises of the beneficence of American military might
and hegemony -- Hobbes's "ill game" -- and naturally bends the universe toward more war.
At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the
two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which
is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that
his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly
is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad.
As Trump takes an extreme hard line against Iran, the neoconservatives may ultimately get their long-held wish of a war with the
ayatollahs. When it ends in a fresh disaster, they can always argue that it only failed because it wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough
-- and the shuffle will begin again.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest and the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.
@ JacobHeilbrunn
"... So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties? It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without question... ..."
"... Let's be clear ~ Whistleblower/CIA who started this plan in January 2016... probably mentored by Brennan. ..."
"... This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of attempting to overthrow the elected government. ..."
Update (1:45 p.m.): Paul was once again denied a question about whistleblower Eric
Ciaramella by Chief Justice Roberts during Thursday's round of impeachment questions in the
Senate.
He refused to read the question @RandPaul : "My question today is
about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama NSC and Democrat partisans
conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal
House impeachment proceedings." pic.twitter.com/8FIcu47PBl
Paul then took to Twitter - writing "My question today is about whether or not individuals
who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired
with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House
impeachment proceedings."
My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama
National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot
impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
" Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close
relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you
aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to
plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. "
***
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was spitting mad Wednesday night after Chief Justice John Roberts
blocked his question concerning the CIA whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment of
President Trump.
According to both Politico
and The Hill , Roberts told Senators that he wouldn't read Paul's question, or any
other question which would require him to publicly say the whistleblower's name or otherwise
reveal his identity - which has been widely reported as CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who worked
for the National Security Council under the Obama and Trump administrations - and who consulted
with Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) staff prior to filing the complaint.
Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn't know the
identity of the whistleblower.
He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower b/c he coordinated with the
individual before the whistleblower's complaint! His staff helped write it!
A frustrated Paul was overheard expressing his frustration on the Senate floor during a
break in Wednesday's proceedings - telling a Republican staffer " If I have to fight for
recognition, I will. "
Roberts signaled to GOP senators on Tuesday that he wouldn't allow the whistleblower's
name to be mentioned during the question-and-answer session that started the next day, the
sources. Roberts was allowed to screen senators' questions before they were submitted for
reading on the Senate floor, the sources noted.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other top Republicans are also
discouraging disclosure of the whistleblower's identity as well . Paul has submitted at least
one question with the name of a person believed to be the whistleblower, although it was
rejected. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) composed and asked a question regarding the whistleblower
earlier Wednesday that tiptoed around identifying the source who essentially sparked the
House impeachment drive. - Politico
"We've got members who, as you have already determined I think, have an interest in
questions related to the whistleblower," said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD), adding
"But I suspect that won't happen. I don't think that happens. And I guess I would hope it
doesn't."
That said, Paul says he's not giving up - telling reporters "It's still an ongoing process,
it may happen tomorrow."
Does Ciaramella deserve 'anonymity'?
Of note, Roberts did not offer any legal argument for hiding the whistleblower's identity -
which leads to an
interesting argument from Constitutional law expert and impeachment witness Johnathan
Turley concerning whistleblower anonymity.
Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress -- only
protection from retaliation . Conversely, the presiding officer rarely stands in the path of
senators seeking clarification or information from the legal teams. Paul could name the
whistleblower on the floor without violation federal law. Moreover, the Justice Department
offered a compelling analysis that the whistleblower complaint was not in fact covered by the
intelligence law (the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to Congress). The Justice
Department's Office of Legal Counsel found that the complaint did not meet the legal definition
of "urgent" because it treated the call between Trump and a head of state was if the president
were an employee of the intelligence community. The OLC found that the call "does not relate to
'the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity' under the authority of
the Director of National Intelligence . . . As a result, the statute does not require the
Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees. " The Council
of the Inspectors General on Integrity and EfficiencyCouncil strongly disagree with that
reading.
Regardless of the merits of this dispute, Roberts felt that his position allows him to
curtail such questions and answers as a matter of general decorum and conduct. It is certainly
true that all judges are given some leeway in maintaining basic rules concerning the conduct
and comments of participants in such "courts."
This could lead to a confrontation over the right of senators to seek answers to lawful
questions and the authority of the presiding office to maintain basic rules of fairness and
decorum . It is not clear what the basis of the Chief Justice's ruling would be in barring
references to the name of the whistleblower if his status as a whistleblower is contested and
federal law does not protect his name. Yet, there are many things that are not prohibited by
law but still proscribed by courts. This issue however goes to the fact-finding interests of a
senator who must cast a vote on impeachment. Unless Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can defuse
the situation, this afternoon could force Roberts into a formal decision with considerable
importance for this and future trials.
Technically he's not a Whistleblower, he's an Informant. To be a whistleblower Ciaramella
would have to inform on the CIA. Because that's who he worked for.
If the Senate is truly the Chief Justices Court the Chief Justice can modify the rules
case by case. In this case he made the wrong decision and Senator Paul is concerned I agree
with Senator Paul.
I'd have double-tapped that ****** and pissed in his face while he bled to death. And I'd
have been a little bit "slow" to dial 911 after I'd dialed 9MM.
Interesting how Trump does not need to make any more appointments to SCOTUS. I figure RBG
is not long for the court, but Roberts might beat her to it. Either way, the majority
strengthens by subtraction.
So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties?
It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without
question...
The Deep State agents must be protected at all costs, including obstruction of justice and
failing to allow relevant information to be submitted without reference to a
whistleblower.
The chief justice will not allow CIA agents who conspire and plan a coup to overthrow the
president to be revealed for it would destroy any sliver of credibility they have left.
I think it's hilarious that they actually believe they can remove a President based on
nothing but hidden "evidence" and that we will all just accept that! These people are the
Alpha and Omega of stupid!
The problem is, there seems to be no court to try him. Actually SCOTUS would be that
court, but it's questionable, if the Conservative bench at SCOTUS would dare to take that
case, even though they would be in majority, since „Chief Judge" Roberts would - as
party in the case - not be allowed to vote in that matter
The problem with all these compromised a-holes, like Roberts is they are slaves to the
state. Their oath to office needs to be rewritten, with hand placed on an enormous money
vault.
Why call someone clearly guilty of sedition a whistle blower?
This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just
from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of
attempting to overthrow the elected government.
They are not helping Ukraine citizen of which after 2014 live in abject poverty. So in now
way this an aid. They are arming Ukraine to kill Russians and maintain a hot spot on Russian
border.
The USA, specifically Brennan, Nuland and Biden create civil war out of nothing pushing far
right nationalist to suppress eastern population by brute forces (they burned alive 200 hundred
or more people on Odessa and killed people in Mariupol before Donbass flared up)
They are despicable MIC bottomfeeders. Neocon calculation is that Russia will not respond to
this provocation, because it is too weak after the economic rape of 1991-2000. While Putin is a
very patient politician they might be wrong.
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by James Bovard via JimBovard.com, ..."
"... "corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States." ..."
"... "I think it makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are corrupt." ..."
"... " remains skeptical after a history of broken promises [from the Ukraine govt]. Kiev hasn't successfully completed any of a series of IMF bailout packages over the past two decades, with systemic corruption at the heart of much of that failure." ..."
"... "Most foreign aid winds up with outside consultants, the local military, corrupt bureaucrats, the new NGO [nongovernmental organizations] administrators, and Mercedes dealers." ..."
"... James Bovard is the author of " ..."
"... Attention Deficit Democracy ..."
"... The Bush Betrayal ..."
"... Terrorism and Tyranny ..."
"... ," and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at ..."
The campaign to convict and remove President Donald Trump in the Senate hinges on delays in
disbursing U.S. aid to Ukraine. Ukraine was supposedly on the verge of great progress until
Trump pulled the rug out from under the heroic salvation effort by U.S. government bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, Congress has devoted a hundred times more attention to the timing of aid to
Ukraine than to its effectiveness. And most of the media coverage has ignored the biggest
absurdity of the impeachment fight.
The temporary postponement of the Ukrainian aid was practically irrelevant considering that
U.S. assistance efforts have long fueled the poxes they promised to eradicate –
especially
kleptocracy, or government by thieves .
A 2002 American Economic Review analysis concluded that
"increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption" and
that "corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United
States."
Then-President George W. Bush promised to reform foreign aid that year,
declaring , "I think it makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are
corrupt." Regardless, the Bush administration continued delivering billions of dollars in
handouts to
many of the world's most corrupt regimes .
Then-President Barack Obama, recognizing the failure
of past U.S. aid efforts, proclaimed at the United Nations in 2010 that the U.S. government
is "
leading a global effort to combat corruption ." The following year, congressional
Republicans sought to restrict foreign aid to fraud-ridden foreign regimes. Then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton wailed that restricting handouts to nations that fail anti-corruption
tests "has
the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients."
The Obama administration continued pouring tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars into
sinkholes such as Afghanistan, which even its president, Ashraf Ghani, admitted in 2016 was
"one of the
most corrupt countries on earth ." John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghan
Reconstruction (SIGAR), declared that "U.S.
policies and practices unintentionally aided and abetted corruption" in Afghanistan.
Since the end of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has provided more than $6 billion in aid to
Ukraine. At the House impeachment hearings, a key anti-Trump witness was acting U.S. ambassador
to the Ukraine, William B. Taylor Jr. The Washington Post hailed Taylor as someone who "
spent much of the 1990s telling Ukrainian politicians that nothing was more critical to
their long-term prosperity than rooting out corruption and bolstering the rule of law, in his
role as the head of U.S. development assistance for post-Soviet countries." A New York Times
editorial
lauded Taylor and State Department deputy assistant secretary George Kent as witnesses who
"came across not as angry Democrats or Deep State conspirators, but as men who have devoted
their lives to serving their country."
After their testimony spurred criticism, a Washington Post headline
captured the capital city's reaction: "The diplomatic corps has been wounded. The State
Department needs to heal." But not nearly as much as the foreigners supposedly rescued by U.S.
bureaucrats.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 31 that the International Monetary Fund, which has
provided more than $20
billion in loans to Ukraine, " remains
skeptical after a history of broken promises [from the Ukraine govt]. Kiev hasn't
successfully completed any of a series of IMF bailout packages over the past two decades, with
systemic corruption at the heart of much of that failure."
The IMF concluded that Ukraine continued to be vexed by " shortcomings
in the legal framework, pervasive corruption, and large parts of the economy dominated by
inefficient state-owned enterprises or by oligarchs." That last item is damning for the U.S.
benevolent pretensions. If a former Soviet republic cannot even terminate its government-owned
boondoggles, then why in hell was the U.S. government bankrolling them?
Transparency International, which publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, shows
that corruption
surged in Ukraine in the late 1990s (after the U.S. decided to rescue them) and remains at
abysmal levels. Ukraine is now ranked as the 120th most
corrupt nation in the world -- a lower ranking than received by Egypt and Pakistan, two
other major U.S. aid recipients also notorious for corruption.
Actually, the best gauge of Ukrainian corruption is the near-total collapse of its citizens'
trust in government or in their own future. Since 1991, the nation
has lost almost 20% of its population as citizens flee abroad like passengers leaping off a
sinking ship.
And yet, the House impeachment hearings and much of the media gushed over career U.S.
government officials despite their strikeouts. It was akin to a congressional committee
resurrecting Col. George S. Custer in 1877 and fawning as he offered personal insights in
dealing with uprisings by Sioux Indians (while carefully avoiding awkward questions about the
previous year at
the Little Big Horn ).
Foreign aid is virtue signaling with other people's money. As long the aid spawns press
releases and photo opportunities for presidents and members of Congress and campaign donations
from corporate and other beneficiaries, little else matters. Congress almost never conducts
thorough investigations into the failure of aid programs despite their legendary pratfalls. The
Agency for International Development ludicrously evaluated its programs in Afghanistan based
on their "burn rate" – whether they were spending money as quickly as possible,
almost regardless of the results. SIGAR's John Sopko "found a USAID lessons-learned report from
1980s on Afghan reconstruction but nobody at AID had read it
."
After driving around the world, investment guru Jim Rogers declared: "Most foreign
aid winds up with outside consultants, the local military, corrupt bureaucrats, the new NGO
[nongovernmental organizations] administrators, and Mercedes dealers." After the Obama
administration promised massive aid to Ukraine in 2014,
Hunter Biden jumped on the gravy train – as did legions of well-connected
Washingtonians and other hustlers around the nation. Similar largesse assures that there will
never be a shortage of overpaid individuals and hired think tanks ready to write op-eds or
letters to the editor of the Washington Post whooping up the moral greatness of foreign aid or
some such hokum.
When it comes to the failure of U.S. aid to Ukraine, almost all of Trump's congressional
critics are like the "
dog that didn't bark " in the Sherlock Holmes story. The real outrage is that Trump and
prior presidents, with Congress cheering all the way, delivered so many U.S. tax dollars to
Kiev that any reasonable person knew would be wasted. If Washington truly wants to curtail
foreign corruption, ending U.S. foreign aid is the best first step.
paying billions to corrupt Jewish Ukranians is just another way to support Israel.
Christian Zionists understand and approve of this. So what's the big deal? It's free money.
Money that grows on trees. What does it cost to print billions of free money by a few
electronic entries? Nothing. We should print more. Free **** is a beautiful thing.
We can postpone judgment day for at least another decade or so. By then, all the smart
Harvard educated guys and gals at Goldman Sachs and Wall Street will figure out how to kick
the can down the road for another decade or so.
When it all collapses, half of India and Africa and central America will already have
replaced what used to be the American population. The few remaining Americans aside from the
immigrants will be unrecognizable anyway. many will have left. Many more will have been
reduced by failure to procreate and replace themselves. Christians will be a despised,(even
the idiotic Zio-Christians who looked the other way on important issues as long as we were
bombing and killing for their beloved Israel) We will have a dying population as many will
have chosen the gay LGBTQ lifestyle and we are replaced by subservient obedient, uneducated
immigrants who are happy to work for $8 an hour and live in a single room apartment they
share with other immigrant families.
Ukraine was a failed state since day one and it got much worse since US/EU instigated
coup. I don't see any light at the end of tunnel. Zielensky is a more friendly face, but
that's it. He obviously doesn't have power to change the course. He can promise anything
while abroad, but he has to appease the nazis at home or they will get rid of him. In other
words Ukraine is doomed.
Zielensky is more than friendly face...he signed many deals with Putin and behave as
responsible politician who wanna bring normalization and peace. Same forces overthrow
Yanukovitch will try it with Zielensky, because they not wanna peace, but their interest is
war....so Zielensky is in danger.
Ukraine has biggest potential of all countries. Has richest on a planet soil, educated
European population, is poor so money go long way. And of course bridge to forcing Russia
being our ally, and adhere to nationalism, vs being corrupted by globalists.
No ****, it's absurd. The Wretched City was practically unanimous in the screeching about
sending weapons to Ukraine because Crimea voted to join Russia, something they describe up
there as being "annexed". Especially so now because since then Iraq voted to kick the US out
of their country and has been ignored, themselves being "annexed".
This is something that is accepted to a certain degree as a result of Bob Mueller.
Crimea is military important for their security...that why they had naval base there..they
cant afford lose this point and Black Sea....
Soviets were not willing to colonize these satelites like Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. they
were relevant after ww2 and Russians were scared of another war...day they become irrelevant
thanks of new weapons they abandon these states.
I know they are corrupted one...but USA is careless toward Ukraine fortunes...they use
them to provoke conditions to create cold war two...military industry need big enemies for
sake of hundreds bilions usd profits...how would you explain your citizens you pay one third
of budget and no enemies??? so Deep state want cold war two.
More than milion Ukrainians left to Russia...while EU has closed Ukrainian borders...so
who care more of Ukrainian people?
Russians were victims of all of this...red line was Crimea...and Putin did
right...otherwise Russian nuclear security would be doomed if you allow NATO troops to
Crimea.
US politicians not do it first time...did you know most wealthy Kosovian is Magdalene All
Bright?? i live in postcommunist state and whole my life witness western proxies stealing all
valuable stakes here....Communism created state ownership of big industries...domestic
politicians alongside western snakes steal it very ugly way.IN SO CALLED PRIVATIZATION..wheather it is Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Romania etc. even information networks are owed by westeners....we are absolutely
blackmailed.
Russians and partly Ukrainians did not allow foreigers to entry ...they tried it..here and
there something got, whole 90s was going on this big fight among Russians and plus western
snakes for stakes....Putin created order in it alongside Russian oligarchy and
normalization....that why Russians like him.
Are these idiotic Democrats and Russia haters crazy?
Russia has a population and GDP roughly the same as Mexico and they're on the other side
of the planet (unless you're in Alaska). There is exactly zero chance Russia will invade or
attack Western Europe or the USA.
The USA should be concerned with the USA, and not whether Russia will act to safeguard its
border.
When Soviet Union left...military industry for sake of their profits needed to create big
enemy....they created terrorism and islamic wars......now as it failing apart they need new
enemies..big one to explain you why is necessary to give one third of your taxes into
military toys...so they create conflicts around China and Russia with hope to dig in into
cold war two.
Russians and Chinese have not big corporate bussines behind their military...their
spending is tiny compared to US military industry profits....so they have no interest in
wars...while US seek them.
Be aware Americans...your military is not only milking you, but risking of whole humanity
throwing into military disasters even as an accidents . Putin explained it many
times...computer supersystems can be activated so easily if some misteps happen...
If Quid Pro Que is legal, then the swamp is drained. The swamp isn't doing anything wrong.
They have been following the law all this time. Ask the president.
"... Mueller and Schiff are similar figures, who have filled the same thematic space. From the moment Trump took office, a particularly plugged-in segment of the Democratic electorate has been waiting for a Boy Scout with a law degree to take him down. ..."
"... At the Center for American Progress's Ideas Conference in June, for instance, Schiff alluded to the norms of the criminal justice system as he argued that the House should gather enough evidence to convince Republicans to convict Trump in an eventual trial. "How many of you are former prosecutors who indicted someone in the knowledge that you would be unsuccessful in trying to prove the case to a jury?" he asked. "Probably none of you." ..."
"... That, of course, is precisely what Schiff and the House's managers are now doing, House leadership having decided that the revelation of Trump's Ukraine scheme meant that impeachment could wait no longer. ..."
"... "A dangerous moment for America when an impeachment of the president of the United States is being rushed through because of lawyer lawsuits," he intoned. "The Constitution allows it; if necessary, the Constitution demands it if necessary." ..."
"... Everyone participating in the trial knows full well that Trump's acquittal is certain. The real task at hand is speaking to audiences beyond the chamber -- including, at least as far as the defense is concerned, one particular viewer in the White House. ..."
"... When the House managers gave you their presentation -- when they submitted their brief -- they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma," said Bondi. "They spoke to you for over 21 hours and they referenced Biden or Burisma over 400 times. And when they gave these presentations, they said there was nothing to see, it was a sham. ..."
With acquittal a foregone conclusion, Trump's accusers and defenders strive to reach
audiences beyond the Senate.
The impeachment trial of President Trump has been short on
drama. The rules that govern the proceedings effectively preclude it -- senators observing
the trial sit testily, but quietly, through presentations from either side and submit their
questions in writing directly to Chief Justice John Roberts. It's been left to the two legal
teams in the room -- the House managers prosecuting the case against Trump and the
president's defenders -- to craft those moments that might resonate with the public. Now and
again, over the course of their arguments, they've delivered. In this way, the dueling
attorneys don't merely represent two sides in the impeachment debate -- they've served as
stand-ins for the two parties themselves.
The most viral moment of the trial thus far came at the end of last Thursday's session,
when House Intelligence Committee chair and impeachment manager Adam Schiff choked up in an
earnest defense of constitutional order: "If right doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth
doesn't matter, we're lost. The Framers couldn't protect us from ourselves if right and truth
don't matter. And you know that what he did was not right....
"Here right is supposed to matter. It's what's made us the greatest nation on earth. No
Constitution can protect us if right doesn't matter anymore. And you know you can't trust
this president to do what's right for this country."
Figures ranging from Star Wars icon Mark Hamill to former Acting Solicitor General
Neal Katyal offered Schiff rapturous praise for the speech on Twitter, where hashtags like
"#AdamShiffROCKS [sic]" and "#AdamSchiffHasMyRespect" quickly took off. MSNBC's Lawrence
O'Donnell called Schiff "the greatest defender of the Constitution in the twenty-first
century." "Thank God," The Washington Post 's Jennifer Rubin said, "I was alive to
hear Schiff speak these past few days."
The reception from liberals and Never Trumpers was reminiscent of special counsel Robert
Mueller's many months in the sun, prior to the release of his Russia report and his testimony
before the House -- although Schiff, to be fair, has yet to make a shirtless
cameo appearance in a children's book. All told, Mueller and Schiff are similar
figures, who have filled the same thematic space. From the moment Trump took office, a
particularly plugged-in segment of the Democratic electorate has been waiting for a Boy Scout
with a law degree to take him down. The thirst for a legal fight stems not only from
impeachment's offer of a nonelectoral remedy for Trump but also from the way the legalism and
rhetoric that surrounds any discussion about sustaining Constitutional norms offers a stark
contrast to Trump's style of politics. The knotty work of trying to best Trump methodically
through a legal process feels, for some, inherently restorative.
But it's worth remembering that a year ago, the rhetoric of legalism was being deployed to
suppress calls for Trump's impeachment in the first place. Those who advocated for Trump's
removal were told that hearings would have to wait indefinitely until Mueller's deliberate
and disciplined gathering of evidence and the House's various legal battles with the
administration reached their conclusions. Schiff himself was among those defending the party
line. At the Center for American Progress's Ideas Conference in June, for instance,
Schiff alluded to the norms of the criminal justice system as he argued that the House should
gather enough evidence to convince Republicans to convict Trump in an eventual trial. "How
many of you are former prosecutors who indicted someone in the knowledge that you would be
unsuccessful in trying to prove the case to a jury?" he asked. "Probably none of
you."
That, of course, is precisely what Schiff and the House's managers are now doing,
House leadership having decided that the revelation of Trump's Ukraine scheme meant that
impeachment could wait no longer.
As for Trump's defenders, there has been clear separation between the attorneys
responsible for sketching out a half-plausible legal defense for Trump -- as best they can --
and the lawyers tasked mostly with providing a steady stream of tangential obfuscation and
misdirection. Jay Sekulow, one of Trump's personal lawyers and a fixture on Fox News, has
clearly been in the latter camp, reviving familiar lines about a conspiracy against the
president in the booming tones he's honed on his radio show, Jay Sekulow Live. In an
initially befuddling moment on the first day of the trial, Sekulow pivoted into a harangue
against the House managers for complaining about "lawyer lawsuits" -- complaints they hadn't
actually made. It later emerged that Sekulow had simply misheard the phrase "FOIA lawsuits"
-- although the White House's legislative affairs office insisted, naturally, that Sekulow
had been correct. The salient point is that Sekulow powered through his remarks anyway,
defending the principles embedded in the inherently redundant and nonsensical phrase he'd
invented. "A dangerous moment for America when an impeachment of the president of the
United States is being rushed through because of lawyer lawsuits," he intoned. "The
Constitution allows it; if necessary, the Constitution demands it if necessary."
On Tuesday, Sekulow delivered one of the final speeches before the trial's questioning
phase. Most of it was dedicated to relitigating Mueller's report, with a few declamations
against an election year impeachment scattered throughout. But he also tried out, almost as
an aside, one of the most absurd defenses for the president's actions yet. Trump, he argued,
couldn't have been looking out for his own interests in his dealings with Ukraine because
he's proven himself genuinely interested enough in world affairs to seek peace in the Middle
East: "The one that still troubles me -- this idea that the president, it was said by several
of the managers, is only doing things for himself. Understanding what's going on in the world
today as we're here. They raised it, by the way. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. They
raised it! This president is only doing things for himself, while the leaders of opposing
parties, by the way, at the highest level, to obtain peace in the Middle East. To say you're
only doing that for yourself."
This, putting it mildly, is not the kind of argument one makes in an earnest attempt at
swaying jurors. Everyone participating in the trial knows full well that Trump's
acquittal is certain. The real task at hand is speaking to audiences beyond the chamber --
including, at least as far as the defense is concerned, one particular viewer in the White
House.
This goes some way toward explaining former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's
involvement in the trial. She's perhaps best known for her run-in with Anderson Cooper after
the Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016, during which Cooper criticized her for professing
support for the LGBT community after her efforts to block gay marriage in Florida. Three
years earlier, Bondi, having announced an investigation into fraud allegations against Trump
University, suddenly closed the investigation after a group affiliated with her reelection
campaign received an illegal donation from Trump's charitable foundation. After a stint as a
lobbyist for Qatar, she's back in Trump's orbit, and she took up half an hour Monday airing
the dirt on Hunter Biden that Trump had badgered the Ukrainians to promote in the first
place. It would have been a slightly shorter speech had she not stumbled through the text
laid in front of her so clumsily. " When the House managers gave you their presentation
-- when they submitted their brief -- they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma,"
said Bondi. "They spoke to you for over 21 hours and they referenced Biden or Burisma over
400 times. And when they gave these presentations, they said there was nothing to see, it was
a sham. This is fiction. In their trial memorandum, the House managers described this as
baseless. Now, why did they say that? Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times?
The reason they needed to do that is because they're here saying that the president must be
impeached and removed from office for raising a concern. And that's why we have to talk about
this today. They say sham, they say baseless. Because -- they say this -- because if it's OK
for someone to say, 'Hey, you know what, maybe there's something here worth raising,' then
their case crumbles."
The remarks as delivered don't seem too far off from one of Trump's digressive riffs. Like
Trump, she managed to get at least the right nouns in circulation as red meat for a base less
interested in the formal arguments being concocted by Trump's team. By contrast, Schiff's
earnestness and reason is the corresponding cri de coeur for a meaningful proportion of
Democratic voters, as well as -- Democratic leaders hope -- an affect that will reassure
those voters who have remained on the fence about impeachment.
No problem, Putin will happily sell them superior fighter/bombers that can actually fly in
the rain and not succumb to small arms fire from the ground. He'll also equip them with the
S-400 anti-aircraft missile system that can easily knock that flying barrel of pig ****,
better known as the F-35, out of the sky with one shot..
Correction. Sadam was 'supported by the U.$. (so U.$ didn't really have to invade, except
U.$. stabbed him in the back, and Iraqi's had MUCH higher standard of living under Sadam...
until U.$. put sanctions on them and KILLED a half million Iraqi children because the 'PRICE
WAS WORTH IT' (according to *** Princess Madeleine Albright)
the trump card is not playing 6million d chess. he is playing the jewlander card of
killing the top dog over and over again as just a bloody murderous act that achieves nothing.
hamas is stronger than ever. trump is a stable genius among horses not humans.
the murder of soulmani is just another jewlander directed clusterfuck move of many
clusterfuck moves since shrub avenged the death threat to his father and the wmds that were
found to be degraded chemical weapons sold to saddam during the war with iran.
2010-2020 Was the Stalingrad for the world. The decade the empire and their americunt
fodder capitulated on all fronts. The decade that'd serve to fully turn the tie of history in
favor of those God has deemed worthy of him. The following decade is the mass decline of the
empire and its parasites till they reach the end of the precipice to feel in full the misery
they've seethed onto their victims.
They deserve to be bombed because they asked the US to leave, after destroying their
country based on a lie and then occupying it for 20 years? You are a complete *******
idiot.
Been sayin that for years bro. With the world pretty much filled up except for the tundra,
I think a good old fashioned dose of self-determination is in order. No more immigration. No
more refugees. Let every country fix their own goddamned problems and let the bodies fall
where they may. Period.
Oh yeah..? Scorched Earth??? What the **** for? Iraq never harmed the U.$. Russia never
harmed the U.$. North Korea never harmed the U.$. Iran never harmed the U.$. Venezuela never
harmed the U.$. Bolivia never harmed the U.$.!! Libya, Somalia, Vietnam etc etc etc... What
did they ever do to the U.$. And look what the **** you are doing to them. You're a *******
hypocrite. U.$. needs a good SCORCHED EARTH Policy imposed on it. And hardly a country on the
planet will shed a tear... Not even IsraHell...
This is how American Foreign Policy alienated Venezuela, Venezuela was one of the first
export customers for the F16 but sbsequently GHW Bush refused to sell Venezuela spare parts
unless they acquiesced to American pressure on oil royalties.
Venezuela shifted to Russia and has spent more than $40 Billion modernizing their
military, none of the weapons were purchased from the USA.
Funny that the locals are not happy with our gift-bearing. human pyramid-building saviors.
How so utterly ungrateful. We brought them democracy, human rights and genocide, and they now
want us out. Shame!
We should immediately send them Madeleine Albright to explain to them that the deaths of
600,000 Iraqi babies was actually a good thing and "God's work". That'll do!
Good, now the Iraqi's can get missile defense systems from Russia instead, that aren't
designed to turn off when Israel ends up attacking them. But then again, they will need no
missile defenses systems, since they have become closer allies to their former enemies, Iran
and the Saudi's, thanks to us. Winning!
We should bomb the **** out of Iraq again, destroy their military equipment, raid their
banks, blow up their refineries and then leave, because they want us to.
We should bomb the **** out of Iraq again, destroy their military equipment, raid their
banks, blow up their refineries and then leave, because they want us to.
Another Iranian journalist who writes for Mashregh newspaper, described as having
close links to IRGC, tweeted not long after the
news broke out: "We will attack them on the same level as they are attacking us."
The world weeps a hero against you parasitic scum.
Now you just need to follow it up with a complete troop withdrawal from Iraq. You can
abandon that 100 acre military compound, disguised as an embassy.
The Iraqi government want US troops out. The Iraqi people want US troops out of their
country. Shucks, even the American people want US troops out of Iraq, so they can come home
and defend our southern border.
Let the Iraqis and Iranians sort out their own differences.
If you think the isrhll held companies that own those wells give a **** about china
showing, your crazy, they own china, they funded the communist party out of jewyork.... Who
do you think got all those oil wells in syria, iraq, libya.... Genie oil and some other
inclusive board member oils companies.... They run china so they care not a bit either way,
probably thank them for the good cheap labor that knows how to read and write..
Us soldiers did not die for victory..they died for the rich! As a well known line that
often gets tossed around says...War is not meant to be won....it's meant to be continued
We will stay there so long as AIPAC, Israel, and the MIC demand that we stay there. The
dumbed down US populace won't do **** all about it as we bleed our treasure, resources, and
lives for American Corporate Imperialism and Greater Israel. Don't you Trumptards love your
Messiah delivering the greatest Middle East Piece plan of all time?
Earlier today Graham and Cruz turned the question back on Schiiff of Romney's son engaged with Burisma and colored it with
enough language to subtly tell Romney to get in line as his control file is brimming with corruption in Ukraine. Notice how he
became curiously quiet for the rest of the questioning leaving Murkowski and Collins to ask their own questions, which is why Burr
joined their team.
Notable quotes:
"... Yup did you catch the Graham/Cruz question back to Schitt regarding Romney's son involved with Burisma? It was an epic take down letting him know his control file has a lot of evidence...Romney has been very quiet since them. Look for his vote to acquit. ..."
"... This whole impeachment sham has been two-fold: ..."
"... try and damage Trump as much as possible, but more importantly, ..."
"... Try and take the spotlight off the total cesspool the Dem's and, possibly some Republicans (i.e., Romney), have made of the Ukraine. ..."
"... All to cover the monstrous corruption of $multi Billion+ Ukraine aid that was funneled from Obummer's Administration to all the sons, daughters, brothers and phony front companies of the criminal Dimwits and RINOS. Same model in China and Iran. ..."
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) - who has forcefully advocated for testimony from former national
security adviser John Bolton after a leaked manuscript from his upcoming book claims President
Trump directly tied Ukraine aid to investigations into the Bidens - said nothing after the
lunch, which Murkowski did not attend.
Mitt Romney created Obamacare for Massachusetts ... as anti American and anti republican as
you can get... throw the two out.
OpenEyes
Mitt Romney is about to get thrown under the bus by the republican establishment.
Then comes the Durham report
Then comes the official investigation into the Ukraine corruption
The comes the orange jumpsuit
For Mittens, the hits will just keep coming
Totally_Disillusioned
Yup did you catch the Graham/Cruz question back to Schitt regarding Romney's son involved with Burisma? It was an epic
take down letting him know his control file has a lot of evidence...Romney has been very quiet since them. Look for his vote
to acquit.
1) try and damage Trump as much as
possible, but more importantly,
2) Try and take the spotlight off the total cesspool the Dem's and, possibly some Republicans (i.e.,
Romney), have made of the Ukraine. Congress and other agencies could spend years
investigating all the corruption there with starring roles by: Obama, Soros, much of the
Obama State Department, CIA, Obama Defense Dept...........the list is quite long.
All to cover the monstrous corruption of $multi Billion+ Ukraine aid that was funneled
from Obummer's Administration to all the sons, daughters, brothers and phony front companies
of the criminal Dimwits and RINOS. Same model in China and Iran.
The American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation which shapes Republican
policy, came up with that.
Bush was going to present his plan in 2005 but was sidetracked by his Iraqi War Crimes.
Romney tested it in Massachusetts.
Democrats passed Republican ACA to woo industry donations to themselves. Republicans are
pissed at that and want the donors back. THIS IS WHAT THE REAL FIGHT IS ABOUT.
Terrorism to Turkey means the PKK/YPG Kurds in Syria which also fight Turkish forces
within Turkey and Iraq. In east Syria the Kurds are cooperating with U.S. troops who occupy
the Syrian oil resources. Turkey wants Syria to at least disarm the Kurds. The Kurds though
use their U.S. relations to demand autonomy and to prevent any agreement with the Syrian
government.
Neither Ankara nor Damascus seem yet ready to make peace. But both countries have economic
problems and will have to come to some solution. There are still ten thousand of Jihadis in
Idleb governorate that need to be cleaned out. Neither country wants to keep these people.
The export of these Jihadis to Libya which Turkey initiated points to a rather unconventional
solution to that problem.
The U.S. has still
not given up its efforts to overthrow the Syrian government through further economic
sanctions. It also
pressures Iraq to keep its troops in the country.
After the U.S. murder of the Iranian general Soleimani and the Iraqi PMU leader
al-Muhandis its position in Iraq is
under severe threat . If the U.S. were forced to leave Iraq it would also have to remove
its hold on Syria's oil. To prevent that the U.S. has reactivated its old plan to
split Iraq into three statelets :
At the height of the war in Iraq Joe Biden publicly
supported it. The original plan failed when in 2006 Hizbullah defeated Israel's attack on
Lebanon and when the Iraqi resistance overwhelmed the U.S. occupation forces.
It is doubtful that the plan can be achieved as long as the government in Baghdad is
supported by a majorities of Shia. Baghdad as well as Tehran will throw everything they have
against the plan.
After the U.S. murder of Soleimani Iran fired well aimed ballistic missiles against U.S.
forces at the Ain al Assad airbase west of Ramadi in Anbar province and against the airport
of Erbil in the Kurdish region. This because those are exactly the bases the U.S. wants to
keep control of. The missiles demonstrated that the U.S. would have to fight a whole new war
to implement and protect its plan.
From the perspective of the
resistance the new plan is just another U.S. attempt to rule the region after its many
previous attempts have failed.
Posted by b on January 28, 2020 at 16:28 UTC |
Permalink
Nine months ago, a group of Iraqi politicians and businessmen from Anbar, Salah al-Din and
Nineveh provinces were invited to the private residence of the Saudi ambassador to Jordan
in Amman.
Their host was the Saudi minister for Gulf affairs, Thamer bin Sabhan al-Sabhan, Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman's point man for the region.
It is not known whether Mohammed al-Halbousi, the speaker of parliament with ties to
both Iran and Saudi Arabia, attended the secret Amman conference, but it is said that he
was informed of the details.
On the agenda was a plan to push for a Sunni autonomous region, akin to Iraqi
Kurdistan.
The plan is not new. But now an idea which has long been toyed with by the US, as it
battles to keep Iraq within its sphere of influence, has found a new lease of life as Saudi
Arabia and Iran compete for influence and dominance.
Anbar comprises 31 percent of the Iraqi state's landmass. It has significant untapped
oil, gas and mineral reserves. It borders Syria.
If US troops were indeed to be forced by the next Iraqi government to quit the country,
they would have to leave the oil fields of northern Syria as well because it is from Anbar
that this operation is supplied. Anbar has four US military bases.
The western province is largely desert, with a population of just over two million. As
an autonomous region, it would need a workforce. This, the meeting was told, could come
from Palestinian refugees and thus neatly fit into Donald Trump's so-called "Deal of the
Century" plans to rid Israel of its Palestinian refugee problem.
Anbar is almost wholly Sunni, but Salah al-Din and Nineveh aren't. If the idea worked in
Anbar, other Sunni-dominated provinces would be next.
At least three large meetings have
already been held over the plan, the last one in the United Arab Emirates. The timing
indicates that the plan was initiated when John Bolton as Trump's national security
advisor.
Canada also has troops in the Kurdish/Erbil region. One wonders if/when Iraq will demand
they go as well, since they are part of the US-led coalition and reflect US/Israeli
geostrategic objectives there
It seems to me that in the Idlib pocket we are seeing an emerging Russian form of
offensive/deterrence military strategy when up against proxies backed by the overwhelming
force of empire.
By using proxies the empire forfeits much of its military mass advantage.
The repeated strike and ceasefire combined with continual negotiation approach negates the
hybrid/media warfare of the empire which requires a period of time to mobilize public
opinion. The empire cannot maintain more than three foci for that dis-information campaign
due to the social engineered response it has manufactured
By constantly maneuvering, especially in coordinating with friends like Xi, opportunities
of attack open up
Choosing moments of maximum empire distraction is also part of the process
This is a far cry from the classic mass formation attack strategy that most present
warfare strategists endlessly debate.
Let the empire wear out it's own heart through an abuse of the hybrid/media warfare til
it's own people vomit up the diet of fear
Impeachment: Trump Team Nails Bidens, Burisma, And Obama's Hot-Mic Moment With Russia by
Tyler Durden Mon,
01/27/2020 - 20:05 0 SHARES
President Trump's defense team cut straight to the heart of the impeachment on Monday,
insisting that Democrats have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bidens didn't engage
in textbook corruption in Ukraine - and that President Trump's request to investigate it was
out of line.
Former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, a recent addition to the White House
communications team, walked the Senate through the entire malarkey for 30 minutes , including Hunter Biden's 'nepotistic at
best, nefarious at worst' board seat at Ukrainian gas giant Burisma.
"All we are saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue, and
that is enough," said Bondi, who noted that Hunter Biden was paid over $83,000 per month to sit
on Burisma's board even though he had zero experience in natural gas or Ukrainian relations
while his father was Vice President and in charge of Ukraine policy for the United States.
Trump attorney Eric Herschmann said that Democrats have been "circling the wagons" to
protect the Bidens - and are refusing to investigate the Bidens, claiming without conducting an
investigation that all allegations against them are 'debunked.'
Herschmann then laid into former President Obama, who was caught on a hot mic asking Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev for "space" until after his election .
One can only imagine what would happen if the Left & the media applied their
manufactured outrage to Obama's actions & statements.
Remember when Obama was caught asking Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for "space" until
after his election?
"... Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship with a weak partner government like this? ..."
"... The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up making the Ukrainian government's argument for them ..."
"... To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy. It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do. ..."
"... These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the problem. ..."
"... Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S. security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course, our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security. ..."
ormer ambassador William Taylor wrote an op-ed on Ukraine in
an attempt to answer Pompeo's question about whether Americans care about Ukraine. It is not
very persuasive. For one thing, he starts off by exaggerating the importance of the conflict
between Russia and Ukraine to make it seem as if the U.S. has a major stake in the outcome:
Here's why the answer should be yes: Ukraine is defending itself and the West against
Russian attack. If Ukraine succeeds, we succeed. The relationship between the United States
and Ukraine is key to our national security, and Americans should care about Ukraine.
Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the
West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in
this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with
Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to
our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to
our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if
that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about
our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship
with a weak partner government like this?
The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up
making the Ukrainian government's argument for them. The danger of exaggerating U.S. interests
and conflating them with Ukraine's is that we fool ourselves into thinking that we are acting
out of necessity and in our own defense when we are really choosing to take sides in a conflict
that does not affect our security. This is the kind of thinking that encourages people to spout
nonsense about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." If we view
Ukraine as "the front line" of a larger struggle, that will also make it more difficult to
resolve the conflict. When a local conflict is turned into a proxy fight between great powers,
the local people will be the ones made to suffer to serve the ambitions of the patrons. Once
the U.S. insists that its own security is bound up with the outcome of this conflict, there is
an incentive to be considered the "winner," but the reality is that Ukraine will always matter
less to the U.S. than it does to Russia.
If this relationship were so important to U.S. security, how is it that the U.S. managed to
get along just fine for decades after the end of the Cold War when that relationship was not
particularly strong? As recently as the Obama administration, our government did not consider
Ukraine to be important enough to supply with weapons. Ukraine was viewed correctly as
being of
peripheral interest to the U.S., and nothing has changed in the years since then to make it
more important.
Taylor keeps repeating that "Ukraine is the front line" in a larger conflict between Russia
and the West, but that becomes true only if Western governments choose to treat it as one. He
concludes his op-ed with a series of ideological assertions:
To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major
powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy.
It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do.
These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers
awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a
particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric
like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject
illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the
problem.
Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but
the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the
U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of
arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S.
security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course,
our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that
the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security.
Bolton is pretty dangerous neocon scum... Now he tried to backstab Trump, so Trump gets what
he deserves as only complete idiot or a fully controlled puppet would appoint Bolton to his
Administration.
Breitbart
News , which would include the recently leaked manuscript of former National Security
adviser John Bolton.
The report describes the reviews as a "standard process that allows the NSC to review book
manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before
publication."
The New York Timesreported
Sunday evening that Bolton's draft book manuscript, which had been submitted to the NSC for
prepublication review on Dec. 30, alleged that President Trump told Bolton in August 2019
that he wanted to withhold security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate
former Vice President Joe Biden, among others.
It was not clear if the Times had seen the Bolton manuscript; its sources were
"multiple people" who "described Mr. Bolton's account of the Ukraine affair."
Bolton's lawyer, Chuck Cooper,
issued a statement in which he said: "It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times
article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted ." He did
not confirm or deny the Times ' reporting on the content of the manuscript. -
Breitbart News
What a coincidence! While Alexander Vindman at the NSC testifies against Trump at the
House impeachment, the other brother (Yevgeny) appears to be in charge of clearing John
Bolton's book for publication.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman famously
testified against President Trump during House impeachment hearings in November, where he
admitted to violating the chain of command when he reported his concerns over a July 25 phone
call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky.
Nunes: Did you know that financial records show a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma,
routed more than $ 3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden?
Vindman, whose job is to handle Ukraine policy: "I'm not aware of this fact." pic.twitter.com/6yFbWkufmH
Breitbart notes that the Vindman brothers have offices
across from each other at the NSC , and that the Wall Street Journal describes
Vindman as "an NSC lawyer handling ethics issues." Alexander Vindman, meanwhile, has said that
his brother was the " lead
ethics official " at the agency.
Meanwhile, looks like people are already distancing themselves from Bolton's claims that
President Trump explicitly linked Ukraine aid with an investigation into the Bidens.
"Today, January 27, 2020, we have a stunning update ==>>
After previously claiming no FBI records could be found related to Seth Rich, emails have
been uncovered. These emails weren't just from anybody. These emails were between FBI
lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two most corrupt individuals involved in the Russia
Collusion Hoax.
In a set of
emails released by Judicial Watch on January 22, 2020, provided by a FOIA request on
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two pages on emails refer to Seth Rich:"
These guys are Ukrainian mob moles, sent here by their Ukie Jewish oligarchs when their
positions of privilege went into decline with the collapse of communism. Because its typical
for three first generation schmucks fresh off the immigrant boat to end up with two as
officers both working in the white house, and the third brother back in Ukie Euro land
controlling a major bank hip deep in all the scandal.
Think any investigative agency will touch it, don't **** with the mossad.
Nov 5, 2019In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel
Jim Hickman said that he "verbally reprimanded " Vindman after he heard some of his derisive
remarks for himself. " Do not let the uniform fool you," Hickman wrote. "He is a political
activist in uniform."
So why isn't Vindman doing contracts in North Alaska or deputy attache in Namibia tonight
until he gets passed over 3 times for promotion and forced to retire unless Durham can find
evidence of his guilt?
Speaking of Vindman, an Obama holdover, White House HR head, has prohibited Vindman's
removal from the NSC. He even gets a $30k raise and is permitted to serve out his term until
June. You can't make this **** up:
Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine supported comments made by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)
over whether former National Security Adviser John Bolton should testify in President Trump's
impeachment trial, after a manuscript of his upcoming book was leaked to the New York
Times which claims that President Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an
investigation of the Bidens. "The reports about John Bolton's book strengthen the case for
witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues," said Collins.
JUST IN: GOP Sen. Susan Collins: "The reports about John Bolton's book strengthen the case
for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues." https://t.co/wDglFX1ipA
pic.twitter.com/DlSjXMfDsk
Collins echoed Monday comments by Romney, who said " it is increasingly apparent that it
would be important to hear from John Bolton ," adding that it is "increasingly likely" that
other GOP senators would join the 11th hour call.
... ... ...
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said " This looks like a marketing tactic to sell
books is what it looks like to me."
Sen. Blunt on John Bolton:
"I can't imagine that anything he would have to say would change the outcome of the final
vote. Might be interesting, might be an oversight question that Congress wants to take months
to pursue."
"I think Bolton is credible, he's a friend of mine."
Update (0130ET) : The word of the day is "Shredded" - as in, several Republicans have
described the White House counsel's presentation as having shredded House Democrats'
impeachment arguments.
"... Former Ukrainian Prime Minister and now leader of the opposition party "Batkivshchyna" Yulia Tymoshenko on the ZIK TV channel announced the beginning of the process of "liquidation" of Ukraine. According to her, since independence, the country has fallen under external "curatorship", lost its suvereignity and turned into an object that "everyone uses as they want". ..."
"... "We must recognize that this period of independence, when we had to live with our intellect, our science, our reason, our interests, we lost, replacing all this with advice from the outside," the former Prime Minister was quoted by RIA Novosti. ..."
"... "It is surprising that Yulia Tymoshenko, who made a huge effort to establish external curatorship and earned very solid funds (or at least she was given the opportunity to earn), today, being an outsider, made the right statement. It seems that she understands that this is the only way to return to Ukrainian politics. After all, people's patience is not unlimited, " a member of the Federation Council, Franz Klintsevich, told the newspaper VZGLYAD when commenting on the former Prime Minister's statement. ..."
"... The small managerial experience of Zelensky and Goncharuk (who, as you know, almost lost the post of Prime Minister because of a rather ridiculous story) became a trump card for Tymoshenko. On the eve of the parliamentary elections, she called for protecting the country from the incompetence of the future President. The former head of the government responded immediately to the recent request for Goncharuk's resignation: "This power must be removed, starting with the incompetent President and ending with every incompetent official he brought in." ..."
"... "By and large, the differences between Tymoshenko and Zelensky are stylistic. At its core, one or the other represents the interests of various oligarchic groups." ..."
"... It is clear why Tymoshenko decided to earn points on the protests against the lifting of the moratorium on land sales. According to a survey conducted last October by the Ukrainian sociological service "Rating", 53% of Ukrainians opposed the lifting of the moratorium, and a much larger number (69%) opposed the sale of land to foreigners. ..."
"... "The West needs Ukraine only as an anti-Russia, no more." ..."
Ukraine came under external supervision, everyone uses it as they want, Yulia Tymoshenko
said. And although the big words relate to the entire period of Ukraine's independence, the
critical attack has a specific addressee-President Zelensky. Experts note that Tymoshenko has
no reason to act as a fighter against external management, and Ukraine itself has no chance of
an independent policy for many years of loan payments.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister and now leader of the opposition party "Batkivshchyna" Yulia
Tymoshenko on the ZIK TV channel announced the beginning of the process of "liquidation" of Ukraine. According to her, since
independence, the country has fallen under external "curatorship", lost its suvereignity and turned into an object that "everyone
uses as they want".
"We must recognize that this period of independence, when we had to live with our intellect,
our science, our reason, our interests, we lost, replacing all this with advice from the
outside," the former Prime Minister was quoted by RIA Novosti. At the moment, Ukraine
has entered the stage when its leadership will either draw conclusions and put an end to this
state of Affairs, or will allow the country to be completely deprived of resources and
property, Tymoshenko concluded.
"It is surprising that Yulia Tymoshenko, who made a huge effort to establish external
curatorship and earned very solid funds (or at least she was given the opportunity to earn),
today, being an outsider, made the right statement. It seems that she understands that this is
the only way to return to Ukrainian politics. After all, people's patience is not unlimited, "
a member of the Federation Council, Franz Klintsevich, told the newspaper VZGLYAD when
commenting on the former Prime Minister's statement.
In Tymoshenko's statement, which may look like an Epiphany or remorse, the key words are
"resources" and "property," experts say. "Yulia Vladimirovna in this case continues to develop
her main political theme-opposition to the opening of the land market," Ukrainian political
analyst Vasyl Stoyakin told the newspaper VZGLYAD.
Back in December, Batkivshchyna, together with nationalists from the Svoboda party, launched
a protest campaign that continued last week. The reason was the adoption by the Verkhovna Rada
of the bill, according to which the sale of agricultural land is allowed from October 1, 2020.
"This topic remains the main one for Tymoshenko, and she continues to work actively in this
direction," Stoyakin said. The political scientist believes that we should not expect any
far-reaching consequences of the ex-Prime Minister's loud statement.
But it is obvious that the current President should be considered the addressee of the
accusation, although it mentions the entire period of Ukrainian independence. "Naturally, this
is largely addressed to Vladimir Zelensky, who has the government of Alexey Goncharuk, who does
not understand a damn thing about the economy. Who now manages the Ukrainian economy, in
General, it is completely unclear-people like Goncharuk absolutely can not manage anything, " -
said Stoyakin.
The small managerial experience of Zelensky and Goncharuk (who, as you know, almost lost the
post of Prime Minister because of a rather ridiculous story) became a trump card for
Tymoshenko. On the eve of the parliamentary elections, she called for protecting the country
from the incompetence of the future President. The former head of the government responded
immediately to the recent request for Goncharuk's resignation: "This power must be removed,
starting with the incompetent President and ending with every incompetent official he brought
in."
In previous and current statements of Tymoshenko, the interests of oligarchic structures in
their struggle against other structures that support the "Zelensky team" are primarily
overlooked, says TV host Vladimir Solovyov.
"By and large, the differences between Tymoshenko and Zelensky are stylistic. At its core,
one or the other represents the interests of various oligarchic groups."
The conflict between Tymoshenko and Zelensky is not in relation to the land, but in the
clash of interests of these groups. For this type of politician, what matters is not what will
happen to the land, but who will get it, " Solovyov told the VZGLYAD newspaper. "It's just that
Yulia Tymoshenko has been in this business for a long time, has been integrated into it for a
long time, and can already rightfully be considered an oligarch herself," the source explained.
- Zelensky is still only gaining financial capital, while political capital is already a
problem: there is a position, and he is losing authority at a high rate."
It is clear why Tymoshenko decided to earn points on the protests against the lifting of the
moratorium on land sales. According to a survey conducted last October by the Ukrainian
sociological service "Rating", 53% of Ukrainians opposed the lifting of the moratorium, and a
much larger number (69%) opposed the sale of land to foreigners.
However, as noted by critics, Tymoshenko looks quite strange in the role of the main fighter
with the sale of Ukrainian black soil. After all, in 2008, it was under her leadership that the
Cabinet of Ministers introduced a draft law on the land market to the Parliament. This document
was supposed to lift the moratorium on purchase and sale and allow the purchase of land plots
not only for Ukrainian, but also for foreign citizens. The bill was withdrawn already under
Yanukovych by the government of Mykola Azarov, but before that, Tymoshenko's Cabinet did quite
a lot to simplify the sale of land.
For example, in 2009, the simplified procedure for registration of acts of tranfere of the
land ownership was declared in force indefinitely. "In General, the flexible attitude of
Ukrainian politicians to the land issue is quite a funny story. They often change their
position, " said Vladimir Solovyov.
However, Vasily Stoyakin is sure, "Tymoshenko wasn't going to open the land market and to
achieve entry of the land law into force". "This was a requirement of the International
monetary Fund to get a loan. The bill was developed solely to meet the requirements of the IMF,
" the Ukrainian expert explained.
But this may just indicate that Tymoshenko at least did not protest against the external
management of Ukraine – in this case, from the IMF. Also, as Vladimir Solovyov noted, "I
would like to remind you that Yulia Tymoshenko once led the so-called campaign to NATO. "By and
large, this was already the surrender of most of the sovereignty," Solovyov said.
Back in January 2008, Prime Minister Tymoshenko, together with President Viktor Yushchenko
and the speaker of the Rada, who was then Arseniy Yatsenyuk, sent an official statement to the
NATO headquarters of the Ukrainian authorities about joining the action Plan for membership in
the Alliance.
Tymoshenko did not retreat from her Pro-NATO line. The Batkivshchyna leader, mentioned by
Solovyov, led the" campaign "to the Alliance, in particular, during the 2014 election campaign,
when she called for an immediate referendum on joining NATO to "protect against
aggression".
"I would like to remind you that Yulia Tymoshenko has long and confidently surrendered the
economic sovereignty of Ukraine," Solovyov stated.
By the way, we note that Tymoshenko's "patriot" was criticized for surrendering Ukrainian
economic sovereignty in the early 2010s, including by the "Party of regions" (which is now
considered to be almost the "fifth column of the Kremlin"). It is indicative of the statement
made in 2013 by the people's Deputy-regional Yaroslav Sukhoi in a comment to Ukrainian Pravda:
"High gas prices for Ukraine, which we inherited from Yulia Tymoshenko, kill national
sovereignty and bring the country to its knees. Yulia Tymoshenko's gas agreement of 2009
contradicts national interests."
On this subject
Exposing George Soros makes him look stupid
What Zelensky changed in Ukraine for the year
Ukraine's vice-Prime Minister played on Zelensky's weakness
The fact that Tymoshenko has now raised the idea of fighting external governance is her last
attempt to "jump on the outgoing train" of Ukrainian politics and restore her reputation,
Senator Franz Klintsevich believes. "I do not think that it is able to "save Ukraine" or solve
the problems of Ukrainian citizens, " the source added.
The very statement of the former Prime Minister can be characterized by the phrase "late
caught on", said in turn Vladimir Solovyov. In the winter of 2018, ex-Minister of economy of
Ukraine Viktor Suslov stated on the NewsOne TV channel: Ukraine's foreign exchange reserves are
mainly formed at the expense of external loans, and if Kiev ceases to cooperate with the IMF,
it will no longer receive support from the European Union and other international partners. The
situation has not changed since then.
But the fact that Tymoshenko raised the issue of withdrawing from external Western control
indicates that such a public request exists in Ukraine, Klintsevich said. Ukrainian society has
already had the opportunity to make sure that Western curation has not brought anything
formally independent Ukraine – "all Ukrainian products, except raw materials, the West
does not need, there is no hope that these products will get to the European market," the
Senator said. Klintsevich sure:
"The West needs Ukraine only as an anti-Russia, no more."
On the other hand, participation in the Eurasian structures-the EEU and other associations
of CIS countries-could revive the Ukrainian economy, which is in constant crisis, the source
said. "The only way to save Ukraine is to restore relations with Russia," Klintsevich said. In
his opinion, "Zelensky's team began to send signals about the desirability of restoring
relations with Russia." "But this does not mean that the current Ukrainian government will get
rid of the influence of American curators," the Senator concluded.
Democratic lawmakers are continuing to lay out their case for removing the president from office in the final day of opening arguments
by Democrats in the historic impeachment trial of President Trump. Republicans will begin their opening arguments on Saturday. The
Senate trial comes a month after the House impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine as part
of an effort to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Trump's political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
On Thursday, House impeachment manager Jerrold Nadler made the case that a president can be impeached for noncriminal activity. During
another part of Thursday's proceedings, House impeachment manager Congressmember Sylvia Garcia relied on polls by Fox News
to make the case that President Trump decided to target Joe Biden after polls showed the former vice president could beat Trump in
2020.
For more on the impeachment trial, we're joined by Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the
former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical
Issues .
TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN : We turn now to the historic impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. Democratic
lawmakers are continuing to lay out their case for removing the president from office. Today marks the final day of a 24-hour opening
argument by the Democrats. Republicans begin their opening arguments Saturday. The Senate impeachment trial comes a month after the
House impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine as part of an effort to pressure the Ukrainian
president to investigate Trump's political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. On Thursday, House impeachment manager
Jerrold Nadler made the case that a president can be impeached for noncriminal activity.
REP . JERROLD NADLER : No one anticipated that a president would stoop to this misconduct, and Congress has passed no specific
law to make this behavior a crime. Yet this is precisely the kind of abuse that the Framers had in mind when they wrote the impeachment
clause and when they charged Congress with determining when the president's conduct was so clearly wrong, so definitely beyond
the pale, so threatening to the constitutional order as to require his removal.
AMY GOODMAN : During his presentation, Judiciary chair in the House Jerrold Nadler relied in part on past statements made by key
supporters of President Trump.
REP . JERROLD NADLER : And I might say the same thing of then-House manager Lindsey Graham, who, in President Clinton's trial,
flatly rejected the notion that impeachable offenses are limited to violations of established law. Here is what he said.
REP . LINDSEY GRAHAM : What's a high crime? How about if an important person hurt somebody of low means? It's not very scholarly,
but I think it's the truth. I think that's what they meant by high crimes. Doesn't even have to be a crime.
REP . JERROLD NADLER : In Attorney General Barr's view, as expressed about 18 months ago, presidents cannot be indicted or
criminally investigated, but that's OK, because they can be impeached. That's the safeguard. And in an impeachment, Attorney General
Barr added, the "President is answerable for any abuses of discretion" and may be held "accountable under law for his misdeeds
in office."
AMY GOODMAN : Senator Lindsey Graham reportedly left the Senate chamber shortly before Congressman Nadler played the clip of him
from Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999. During another part of Thursday's proceedings, House impeachment manager Congresswoman
Sylvia Garcia relied on polls by Fox News to make the case that President Trump decided to target Joe Biden after polls showed
the former vice president could beat Trump in 2020.
REP . SYLVIA GARCIA : It wasn't until Biden began beating him in the polls that he called for the investigation. The president
asked Ukraine for this investigation for one reason and one reason only: because he knew he would -- it would be damaging to an
opponent who was consistently beating him in the polls, and therefore it could help him get re-elected in 2020. President Trump
had the motive, he had the opportunity and the means, to commit this abuse of power. If we allow this gross abuse of power to
continue, this president would have free rein -- free rein -- to abuse his control of U.S. foreign policy for personal interests.
And so would any other future president. And then this president and all presidents become above the law.
AMY GOODMAN : House Intelligence chair, House manager Adam Schiff -- he's the lead House impeachment manager -- ended the long
day of oral arguments.
REP . ADAM SCHIFF : It doesn't matter how good the Constitution is. It doesn't matter how brilliant the Framers were. It doesn't
matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is. It doesn't matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right
doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth doesn't matter, we're lost. The Framers couldn't protect us from ourselves, if right
and truth don't matter. And you know that what he did was not right.
AMY GOODMAN : To talk more about the impeachment trial of President Trump, we go to San Diego, California, where we're joined
by Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She's the former president of the National Lawyers Guild.
Her most recent book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues .
Welcome to Democracy Now! , Marjorie Cohn. Start off by assessing the Democrats' case so far for the removal of President
Trump.
MARJORIE COHN : Well, yes, Amy. The Democratic managers, the House managers, have laid out a meticulous case for abuse of power
and obstruction of Congress. And many of these Republican senators who are listening, who have to sit in their chairs for eight hours
a day without talking, without using cellphones, are a captive audience. And many of them have never heard this before. They didn't
follow the case that was made in the House. And this case is so powerful and so deep that Schiff said at the end -- Adam Schiff said
at the end, "You know he's guilty. The question is: Will you remove him?"
Now, these senators, the Republicans, have walked in lockstep with Donald Trump. They are what Frank Rich would call Vichy Republicans,
Vichy being the government in France, in Nazi-occupied France, who were doing Hitler's bidding. They walk in lockstep with him, and
there is almost no chance that they're not going to acquit him. But what Adam Schiff was trying to get across was, they are going
to be on the wrong side of history, because what Donald Trump does -- and he does this consistently -- is to put his own personal
interest ahead of the national interest. And that's something that they all have to grapple with.
Now, one of the things that they focused on yesterday was to refute the allegations that the Bidens did something wrong and therefore
there was merit in Trump's, basically, demand that Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, investigate what they did with the Burisma
company. And what the Democrats were trying to do is to take the wind out of the sails of the Republican case by bringing it up first.
And what the Republicans have said now -- and this is the defense team, Donald Trump's defense team -- is that, "Well, now that they've
opened the door, now that the managers have opened the door, we're going to make that probably a focus" of their defense.
Now, what they did in the House was to focus mainly on process, whereas the managers, the Democrats, focused on the facts and
laid out this roadmap to prove abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. What the Republicans did was to focus on process: "Donald
Trump was denied due process" -- which he wasn't. He was invited to come and didn't participate. Many process arguments. It's unclear
to me, Amy, how the Republicans, how the defense, Donald Trump's defense, is going to take up two or three days -- and they've said
now it's probably going to be two days -- in addition to meeting the Biden -- talking about the Biden issue, because they're going
to really harp on that. It's not clear what they're going to do. They're going to harp on process.
But the thing that's really important about this is not so much that -- he's not going to be found guilty. There's no doubt about
that. The American people are watching. They're following this. And just like during Watergate, when people were riveted to the television,
that is going to be reflected, I believe, in the election. The polls are already showing that people, the majority of American people,
think he should be removed. A huge majority think he did something unethical. And a sizable majority think he did something illegal.
So, this is really, really important, even though ultimately he won't be removed.
AMY GOODMAN : And if he is found guilty, is he automatically removed?
MARJORIE COHN : The Constitution provides that the Senate is to determine his guilt and removal. So it's really part of the same
thing, and therefore -- and this is what Adam Schiff was trying to get at -- even though all or most of the Republicans know in their
heart of hearts that he's guilty, they don't think he should be removed. And so, therefore, they will probably, in all probability,
vote not guilty. But, yes, conviction means removal. That's not going to happen.
AMY GOODMAN : You said that the senators have to sit there for eight hours. In fact, that's not what's happening. Is that right?
I mean, to be very clear, the Republicans are controlling the frame of the TV image. It's no longer, you know, C- SPAN on the floor
of the Senate or the House, so you can't see what's actually happening behind the scenes. But you have Tennessee Republican Senator
Blackburn. She's got books that she's reading. You have Thom Tillis. I believe he got up and he went into the press gallery to hang
out there for a while. And, of course, Lindsey Graham, when Congressmember Nadler played the clip of him saying exactly the opposite
of what he's saying now, that it has to be a crime that President Trump has committed, according to the criminal code, saying the
opposite during Clinton's trial, he reportedly was not in the Senate chamber.
MARJORIE COHN : Yes, that's true. There were a handful of senators who were not there, who were coming and going. But the bulk
of them are listening to, if not all of it, most of it. They just can't get away from it. They are not allowed to have cellphones,
which is probably really difficult for them. And, yes, they do get up and leave and come back, and we're not seeing that, but most
of them are hearing most of this very airtight case, really.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about exactly what President Trump has been impeached for, these two articles of impeachment? And if
you think -- I mean, just look at the title of your book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues
. You have long focused on the issue of war crimes and U.S. presidents guilty of them. The narrow framing of this impeachment?
MARJORIE COHN : Yes. Well, Nancy Pelosi resisted for many, many months mounting impeachment, an impeachment proceeding in the
House. And there are many different grounds that he could have been impeached for: violation of the emoluments clause, corruption
and war crimes, as you said, most recently killing Soleimani in violation of the U.N. Charter, in violation of the War Powers Resolution.
But when the whistleblower complaint came out and it became so clear what Trump had done with strong-arming Zelensky to mount --
not to mount investigations necessarily, but to announce that he was mounting investigations into Trump's political rival, Joe Biden
and this discredited theory that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election, Nancy Pelosi understood that this was an airtight case.
It was narrow. It was clear. People could get their brains around it.
And so we have these two articles of impeachment. Abuse of power and quid pro quo , this for that, dirt for dollars --
I think is one of the phrases that we hear -- that Trump really believed that because we've been so good to Ukraine, Ukraine owes
us. He really does not understand how foreign policy works. It's all about making a business deal, making himself look good. So,
this dirt for dollars -- in other words, if Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, announced an investigation against the Bidens, that
would tarnish Biden, who was leading him in the polls at that time, and help Trump's re-election. Patently illegal, a patent abuse
of power. And then the second article of impeachment is obstruction of Congress. And in an unprecedented move -- no president ever
before has done this, a president facing impeachment, even judges facing impeachment, haven't totally stonewalled the House of Representatives,
not producing one document in response to subpoenas, forbidding all officials of the executive branch from testifying. And this is
a direct violation of the Constitution's command that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. That
means it's not up to the president to decide whether he's going to cooperate with it.
And now, of course, we move to the Senate trial. We have moved to the Senate trial. And the first day of the trial was filled
with pretrial motions, 11 motions, by the House managers for the testimony of four witnesses and the production of documents from
a number of government agencies. Two of those witnesses are John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. Mick Mulvaney said very incriminating
things about the president, admitting the quid pro quo . And John Bolton, who left on bad terms, left the White House on bad
terms, he says he's prepared to testify if he's subpoenaed. Now, Trump is very, very threatened by Bolton's testimony. And, you know,
what Trump thinks comes right out in his tweets. There's no guessing what he's thinking. And most recently he said he doesn't want
Bolton to testify because "Bolton knows how I feel about these matters," and it's a national security threat. And he said, "We didn't
leave on the best of terms." And he's terrified about what Bolton will say.
Now, In the pretrial motions, the Republicans, to a person, walked in lockstep with Trump in tabling the whole issue of whether
or not witnesses would be allowed, these four witnesses or any witnesses, and whether documents could be subpoenaed, until after
six days of argument, opening arguments, by the two parties, by the House managers and by the defense, and 16 hours of questioning
by the senators. It's like in Alice in Wonderland : first the trial, then the evidence. So we have the opening statements,
and then we have the questions by senators. And then, are we going to have evidence? Looks like we may not. Looks like they may prevent
witnesses from testifying, although they have made noises about wanting one of the Bidens to testify, to bolster this spurious theory
that they did something wrong. The Bidens have been completely exonerated by everybody who has examined what happened during this
time in Ukraine, when Joe Biden was acting as vice president consistent with American policy -- very, very different from what Trump
is accused of.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, let me stick with the Bidens for a minute. I want to read from today's New York Times , the
front page . "Joseph R.
Biden Jr. called an octogenarian voter a 'damn liar' and challenged him to a push-up contest. He dismissed a heckler as an 'idiot.'
He commanded the news media to focus on President Trump instead of the overseas business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, demanding
of one reporter, 'Ask the right question!' For Mr. Biden, the stream of questions about his son touches on a vulnerability for his
candidacy and presents a fine line for him to navigate. At issue is an unsubstantiated theory pushed by Mr. Trump that Mr. Biden
took action in Ukraine as vice president in order to help his son, who at the time held a lucrative position as a board member of
Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company."
So, I mean, let's talk about this for a minute. You know, some have speculated this is a real crisis, the impeachment trial, at
this time, because, you know, four senators can't be out on the campaign trail, the leading senators in the Senate, Senator Sanders
and Senator Elizabeth Warren, so Biden is out there along with Buttigieg in Iowa at this key moment. But it could also be a liability
for Biden, as he is now open to questions from both Iowans and reporters about what actually happened, not necessarily about what
Vice President Biden did. But what about his son, Hunter Biden, on the board of Burisma? If you can talk about what the accusations
are and also, significantly, this whole issue of reciprocal witnesses, the idea that the Republicans could call Hunter Biden to testify?
Clearly, Biden is getting very nervous about this, too.
MARJORIE COHN : He is, Amy. And yes, this could cut both ways. People will be very defensive of Biden and say, you know, he's
being unfairly attacked, he's been cleared, he didn't do anything wrong. And on the other hand, some people will think, "Well, where
there's smoke, there's fire." And this doesn't look good. Biden, Joe Biden, was vice president at the same time that Hunter Biden
was on the board of Burisma, this very, very lucrative position. But Biden was vice president at the time, and he -- consistent with
the Obama administration's policy, he was pressuring Ukraine to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor, because the U.S. policy was to oppose
corruption in Ukraine. And so, really, in that context, Biden did not do anything wrong. However, that doesn't mean that the fact
that he is in this position -- was in this position, and his son was on the board of Burisma, is going to raise some questions. Where
there's smoke, there's fire. There will be people who will not support Biden for that reason. On the other hand, he may well benefit
from being on the defensive by Donald Trump.
Now, if there are witnesses allowed at all -- and I highly doubt it -- I can't imagine that the Republicans would not push to
subpoena one or both of the Bidens. And then it's going to become a mini trial, a trial within a trial, where it's going to focus
on what Biden did or didn't do. Did he do something improper? Was Trump justified in asking Zelensky to mount an investigation of
Joe Biden? And so, I think this is going to be very interesting. And certainly, the Republicans, Trump's defense, are going to go
deeply into the appearance of impropriety with Biden and his son. It remains to be seen whether one or both of the Bidens will actually
be called to testify, and whether any witnesses, for that matter, will be called to testify.
AMY GOODMAN : And, very quickly, this whole issue that Republicans are raising, if the witness issue is going to be -- this impeachment
trial could go on for months, because it will go to court. Now, interestingly, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts,
is right in the room. He's presiding over this trial. So, where does he weigh in on this? And is this true?
MARJORIE COHN : I don't see this being hung up in the courts. I think it will be resolved in the Senate. Chief Justice John Roberts
is in a very, very delicate position. I'm sure he would rather be anywhere than where he is, presiding over this Senate trial, which
the Constitution provides for. And he really doesn't have much power. One of the amendments that the House managers proposed in their
pretrial motions was to allow Chief Justice John Roberts to determine whether any prospective witness's testimony would be relevant
to the issues. And the Republicans voted that down. Now, even if they had allowed that to happen and he had served that function,
any ruling that John Roberts makes could be overruled by 51 senators. So, it's really kind of a ceremonial role that he plays. He
is not going to take an active role. He's going to follow what Chief Justice Rehnquist did during the Clinton impeachment trial and
really call balls and strikes, for the first time, which is what Roberts promised to do during his confirmation hearings as Supreme
Court justice. And, of course, that is not the case at all.
AMY GOODMAN : Marjorie Cohn, I want to thank you for being with us, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former
president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, member
of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical
Issues .
While I agree that the removal of Trump might be slightly beneficial (Pence-Pompeo duo initially will run scared), this Kabuki
theater with Schiff in a major role is outright silly.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman. And
with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even for
the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-)
As he supported the Iraq war, he has no right to occupy any elected office. He probably should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors
such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine.
The claim that Trump is influenced by Russia is a lie. His actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
so much for Russia. Several of his actions were more reckless and more hostile to Russia than the actions of the Obama administration.
Anyway, his policies toward Russia are not that different from Hillary's policies. Actually, Pompeo, in many ways, continues Hillary's
policies.
The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a State
department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power on the
border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not.
They (especially sniper rifles) will definitely increase casualties of Ukrainian separatists (and will provoke Russian reaction
to compensate for this change of balance and thus increase casualties of the Ukrainian army provoking the escalation spiral ),
but that's about it. So more people will die in the conflict while Northrop Grumman rakes the profits.
They also increase the danger of the larger-scale conflict in the region, which is what the USA neocons badly wants to impose
really crushing sanctions on Russia. The danger of WWIII and the cost of support of the crumbling neoliberal empire with its outsize
military expenditures (which now is more difficult to compensate with loot) somehow escapes the US neocon calculations. But they
are completely detached from reality in any case.
I think Russia can cut Ukraine into Western and Eastern parts anytime with relative ease and not much resistance. Putin has
an opportunity to do this in 2014 (risking larger sanctions) as he could establish government in exile out of Yanukovich officials
and based on this restore the legitimate government in Eastern and southern region with the capital in Kharkiv, leaving Ukrainian
Taliban to rot in their own brand of far-right nationalism where the Ukraine identity is defined negatively via rabid Russophobia.
His calculation probably was that sanctions would slow down the Russia recovery from Western plunder during Yeltsin years and,
as such, it is not worth showing Western Ukrainian nationalists what level of support in Southern and Eastern regions that they
actually enjoy.
My impression is that they are passionately hated by over 50% of the population of this region. And viewed as an occupying
force, which is trying to colonize the space (which is a completely true assessment). They are viewed as American stooges, who
they are (the country is controlled from the USA embassy in any case).
And Putin's assessment might be wrong, as sanctions were imposed anyways, and now Ukraine does represent a threat to Russia
and, as such, is a huge source of instability in the region, which was the key idea of "Nulandgate" as the main task was weakening
Russia. In this sense, Euromaidan coup d'état was the major success of the Obama administration, which was a neocon controlled
administration from top to bottom.
Also unclear what Dems are trying to achieve. If Pelosi gambit, cynically speaking, was about repeating Mueller witch hunt
success in the 2018 election, that is typical wishful thinking. Mobilization of the base works both ways.
So what is the game plan for DemoRats (aka "neoliberal democrats" or "corporate democrats" -- the dominant Clinton faction
of the Democratic Party) is completely unclear.
I doubt that they will gain anything from impeachment Kabuki theater, where both sides are afraid to discuss real issues like
Douma false flag and other real Trump crimes.
Most Democratic candidates such as Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar will lose from this impeachment theater. Candidates who can
gain, such as Major Pete and Bloomberg does not matter that much.
While baseless House claims definitely can be shred, the fact that Trump abused his office
remains.
Notable quotes:
"... Dems do not want Schiff and the whistleblower. So while they publicly say they want witnesses, privately they do not. But they do want to hang the blame on the republicans when Trump is acquitted, noting that this whole process was unfair to the dems (forget the President, he doesn't deserve fairness anyway). As victims, they should recapture some of their losses at the 2020 polls. ..."
Update (0130ET) : The word of the day is "Shredded" - as in, several Republicans
have described the White House counsel's presentation as having shredded House Democrats'
impeachment arguments.
"In two hours, the White House counsel entirely shredded the case by the House managers,"
said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) in a statement to reporters. "What we saw today was factually
relevant ... and (we) saw there were a lot of half-truths from the House managers and, frankly,
pushed by the media."
Rep. Elise Stafanik (R-NY) offered similar comments - saying "It took less than two hours to
completely shred and eviscerate Adam Schiff's failed case for impeachment," adding "There is no
case for impeachable offenses here. And it took less than two hours to do so. I think the
American people understand that."
While Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said "3 days of Democrat arguments were just shredded 2
hours."
Rep. Adam Schiff, meanwhile, says the White House counsel is trying to "deflect" away from
Democrats' claims that President Trump abused his office, according to The Hill .
"After listening to the President's lawyers opening arguments, I have three observations:
They don't contest the facts of Trump's scheme. They're trying to deflect, distract from, and
distort the truth. And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses,"
Schiff tweeted on Saturday.
After listening to the President's lawyers opening arguments, I have three
observations:
They don't contest the facts of Trump's scheme.
They're trying to deflect, distract from, and distort the truth.
And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses.
Update (1130ET) : Trump's lawyers began their opening arguments Saturday by
slamming Democrats for having "no evidence" to support their argument that Trump's conduct with
Ukraine warrants impeachment and removal.
"They're asking you not only to overturn the results of the last election but, as I've said
before, they're asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's
occurring in approximately nine months," said White House counsel Pat Cipolline, adding "I
don't think they spent one minute of their 24 hours talking to you about the consequences of
that for our country."
Cipollone began on Saturday by reading directly from the transcript of the July 25 phone
call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky - claiming Democrats
misrepresented it. In particular, the White House counsel played a clip of House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) reading a 'parody' of the call .
The use of the clip is likely to satisfy Trump. The president spent the days after Schiff
made the comments calling for the congressman's resignation and suggesting he committed
treason. Even months after the September hearing, Trump continues to bring up Schiff's
comments in interviews when railing against the impeachment proceedings.
Trump in his call with Zelensky asked the foreign leader to investigate a debunked theory
about 2016 election interference and to probe Joe Biden and his son Hunter's dealings in
Ukraine. The call triggered a rare intelligence community whistleblower complaint claiming
that Trump solicited foreign interference in a U.S. election, with the complaint being a key
piece of evidence in the Democrats' impeachment case. -
The Hill
Following Saturday arguments, Trump's lawyers will pick up again on Monday.
***
After three days of "why" , here comes the "why not" ...
Beginning at 10am ET, White House lawyers began their defense of the President on Day 5 of
the Senate Impeachment Trial.
The Trump lawyers are expected to speak for upwards of three hours after Democrats wrapped
up their opening arguments on Friday night.
A member of the legal team, Jay Sekulow, referred to Saturday's session as "a trailer" of
"coming attractions" for next week's sessions.
Like how debunked used to mean something that had been thoroughly investigated and proven
to be false, while now it means something never looked into... that democrats don't want
looked into.
I don't have a partisan dog in this fight... I just hope America wins. That said, I do
agree that the WH attorneys shredded the flimsy, highly tendentious Dumocratic Party case...
testimony was focused and entirely relevant...this whole farce must be put to bed immediately
by the Senate... and MAYBE the Congress might try to address unfolding crises on many fronts
(though I doubt they have the smarts or integrity to do so)
I started watching at 42:00 and it was all over for Schiff by 2:38:00. Less than 2 hours
to completely gut 3 days and 21 hours of bullSchiff Every American who has critical thinking
ability and isn't completely deranged should watch this.
It's so great the way every democrat has said "We need witnesses!".
Bolton, Mulvaney--and they will raise executive privilege, which will have to be newly
litigated in the impeachment context.
For how long? Now that the House has rushed the process and left this mess for the Senate,
they don't care how long it takes, expecially if it leads to a continuing impeachment during
the 2020 election.
Do they really want witnesses? Because Trump really wants Biden, Schiff, and the
whistleblower. On the first day of counsel's argument, did you hear white house counsel say
"Schiff is a fact witness" and say how even Schiff started by saying "We have to hear from
the whistleblower" before it was revealed that he was all tied up with the whistleblower.
Dems do not want Schiff and the whistleblower. So while they publicly say they want
witnesses, privately they do not. But they do want to hang the blame on the republicans when
Trump is acquitted, noting that this whole process was unfair to the dems (forget the
President, he doesn't deserve fairness anyway). As victims, they should recapture some of
their losses at the 2020 polls.
It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be
attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring
office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.
A separate Sunni state in West Iraq would be doomed. We need to leave these people alone,
we've made enough foolish mistakes and this will get a lot of people killed. That's along
with US troops being put in harms way for ridiculous reasons like stealing Syrian oil and now
occupying Iraq against their parliaments wishes.
Back in the day you told someone you were American and they wanted to shake your hand and
ask you about this place or that. Now they want to spit in our faces
Adam Schiff, the liberal hero of impeachment, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
military-industrial complex and a fervent exponent of permanent war.
o some Democrats and journalists, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) is a hero. All over the
internet, people are thanking him for defending the Constitution, hoping he'll run for
president someday. After his performance during this week's impeachment hearing, the worship
was especially intense; a letter writer to the New York Times called it
"brilliant" and a "tour de force," while the conservative Washington Times made
fun of all the blue-checked Twitter accounts losing their objectivity in ecstatic praise. As
the face of the impeachment effort, especially for liberals disengaged from the election
process, Schiff represents a glimmer of hope for domestic regime change.
We'd like to be on his side. After all, he's working hard to take down Donald Trump, one of
the worst presidents in American history. But let's not get carried away in fandom. Schiff is a
dangerous warmonger, and his efforts to fuel paranoia about Russia only serve to feed that
agenda. It would be admirable if Schiff's impeachment crusade was limited to Trump's
corruption. But something else drives him: he wants a proxy war in Ukraine with Russia, and he
has for some time.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a prosperity preacher. That is to say, he looks like a
classic dodgy American salesman, but with a beatific glow of righteousness. This creepily
wholesome look lends a corny Cold War ambiance to his constant fulmination about "the
Russians." It's hard not to listen to him without thinking of Allen Ginsberg's 1956 poem
"America":
America, it's them bad Russians
Them Russians, them Russians and them Chinamen.
And them Russians.
Assuring us that he is aware, actually, of what century this is, Schiff
said in 2015 , "Now, we're not seeing the same bipolar world we had between communism and
capitalism." (Phew!) He then added, "But we are seeing a new bipolar world, I think, where you
have democracy versus authoritarianism." Schiff has not viewed this as a mere contest of ideas:
he constantly advocated for Obama to impose tougher sanctions on Russia and give more weapons
to Ukraine.
Although delicately opposed to violence in some contexts -- he's a vegan! -- this isn't the
only war Schiff has championed. He supported the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya wars, greater US
intervention in Syria, as well as the Saudi war with Yemen (although he has, in the past year,
turned against the latter adventure, seeming to draw the line at sawing up journalists with
bonesaws -- he is a moderate after all, plus very popular with the media), and he has
voted for nearly every possible increase in the defense budget.
As Jacobin
's own Branko Marcetic observed two years ago , Schiff's bellicosity is extensively funded
by arms manufacturers and military contractors. A Ukrainian arms dealer named Igor Pasternak
held a $2,500 per head fundraiser for Schiff in 2013, as the late Justin Raimondo reported
in a terrific analysis on Antiwar.com in 2017, at a time when Ukraine was desperately trying to
counter the Obama administration's disinterest in funding its war with Russia. Despite that
disinterest, the State Department approved some very profitable dealings for Pasternak in
Ukraine after that fundraiser.
And that's only one example. In the current cycle, donations from the war industry have
continued to flood his coffers. Many come from employees of firms with extensive Department of
Defense contracts, including Radiance Technologies and Raytheon. PACs representing the defense
industry also make a robust showing among Schiff's contributors, according to data on Open
Secrets.org; companies funneling money to Schiff -- sorry, contributing to those PACs
-- include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Radiance, and others, including
L3Harris Technologies (which
got in big trouble with the State Department in September and had to pay $13 million in
penalties for illegal arms dealing).
Guess what these companies want? War with Ukraine. Why wouldn't they? Last
October, the United States approved a $39 million sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, a
joint contract between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The previous year, Ukraine bought $37
million worth of missiles from the same two companies. As a missile-maker, Zacks Equity
Research has noted, Northrop Grumman also benefits richly from conflict in Ukraine, as missiles
are heavily used in cross-border wars.
Despite his enthusiastic support for state violence and cozy ties to the makers of deadly
weaponry, Schiff, an Alexander Hamilton–quoting windbag, doesn't have much crossover
appeal to the sort of people who put "These Colors Don't Run" stickers on their trucks. His
impeachment crusade only seems to reinforce Trump's support among the faithful; at this
writing, 93 percent of Republicans oppose the president's removal from office.
Welcome to the #Resistance.
Liza Featherstone is a columnist forJacobin, a freelance journalist,
and the author ofSelling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at
Wal-Mart.
This article was originally published by "Jacobin" -
These swine care nothing about truth--their only object is to create a "narrative" (which
used to be known as a "line of ********") to brainwash what few followers can still stomach
it and cover their moral bankruptcy and crimes.
Schiff is a GD fascist. And a ******* liar. He claims Trump would "cheat again" in 2020.
Huh? Does this prick have problems dealing with reality? Seriously, did the Mueller Report
not happen in his mind? I don't think I've ever seen someone who believes so much that's just
not true. And he's indignant about his own fucked up version of "facts" that are lies. He
needs to just go and be with Satan.
Clearly he didn't awe anyone, but part of the show is to refer to this flop as a sparkling
whimsical glory of magical historical spiffyness, by the most grandest superb stunning genius
man ever to be televised, ever. Ever.
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and
dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific
evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.
The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog
organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most
consequential jobs was assisting the international body's fact-finding mission (FFM) on the
ground in Douma.
He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia's delegation that
OPCW management had rejected his group's scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced
another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.
"We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson said, referring
to the FFM team in Douma.
The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research
that "provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists
Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western
government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of
dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018.
Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.
The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a
chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military
assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN
authorization.
Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims
In May 2019, an internal
OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian
Henderson, said the "dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders" in Douma
"were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having
been delivered from an aircraft," adding that there is "a higher probability that both
cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from
aircraft."
After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and
International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, "The evidence is overwhelming that
the gas attacks were staged." Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing "compromised
reporting" and ignoring
scientific evidence .
WikiLeaks has published
numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body's management staff
doctored the Douma report.
As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW's first director-general, José
Bustani, decided to speak out. "The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW
investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already
had," Bustani stated.
"I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official
reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now,
although very disturbing," the former OPCW head concluded.
OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma
On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging
suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council
Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.
( Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full
transcript of Henderson's testimony .)
China's mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council
session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a
visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to
the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning
UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body's
headquarters agreement .)
Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only
OPCW inspector to question the leadership's treatment of the Douma investigation.
"My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent
management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,"
Henderson explained.
Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to
the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples,
interviews with witnesses, and data collection.
In July 2018, the FFM published its
interim report , stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. ("The
results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected
in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties," the
report indicated.)
"By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we
had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson told the Security
Council.
After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW
leadership decided to create a new team, "the so-called FFM core team, which essentially
resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to
locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis."
Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that
chemical weapons had been used in Douma.
"The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments," Henderson
remarked at the UN session.
"The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in
the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or
ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was
understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018,"
Henderson stated.
The former OPCW expert added, "I had followed up with a further six months of engineering
and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support
for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
A former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert told the UN Security Council
that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their
findings were suppressed and reversed
The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking
Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula
meeting.
Acting US representative Cherith
Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the "Assad regime," and told the UN
that the "United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets"
– a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda
and have been involved in
numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by
Islamist extremists .
The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush
administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured
him to resign.
In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an
agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors
to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US
government.
Then-Under Secretary of State John
Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick " Cheney wants
you out ." Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, "You have 24 hours to
leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways
to retaliate against you We know where your kids live."
Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson
While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an
interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop,
aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics,
including Ian Henderson.
Bellingcat is funded by the US government's
regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative
bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.
Supporters of the OPCW's apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat
to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who
debated Higgins, has noted that
Bellingcat "have no scientific credibility at any level." Postol says he even suspects that
OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat's highly dubious claims in its own compromised
reporting.
Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The
New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that "Higgins attributed his
skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours
he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be
cracked."
In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking
out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.
Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe
himself, because, "I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider
this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns."
Russia's UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and
representatives of the organization's Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate
in the session.
Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW's Douma report
Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video :
Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council
"My name is Ian Henderson. I'm a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about
12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the
Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa
waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will
now add a short introduction.
I need to point out at the outset that I'm not a whistleblower; I don't like that term. I'm
a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and
appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.
Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the
professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must
stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in
certain sensitive missions.
The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on
the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other
inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later
analysis and compilation of a final report.
There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field
deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.
The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called
FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had
been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings
and analysis.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the
time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious
misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.
What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the
team members who deployed to Douma -- in which case I really can only speak for myself at this
stage -- the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis
in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering,
and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what
was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.
In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies
into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there
had not been a chemical attack.
This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and
engineering. In my situation, it's not a political debate. I'm very aware that there is a
political debate surrounding this.
Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who
developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC
facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two
inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex
at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.
That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you."
On Wednesday, Jan 22 Donald Trump wrote his name in the Guinness records books setting Presidential record in Twits.
According @FactbaseFeed, an account which tracks Trump's Twitter habits, Trump sent 142 tweets and retweets on Wednesday --
eclipsing his previous single-day presidential record of 123.
According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on Americans or American interests will
be met with a decisive response, which the president demonstrated on January 2".
And American interests are defined very flexibly, sometimes in conflicting tweets.
The deep state clearly is running the show (with some people unexpected imput -- see Trump
;-)
Elections now serve mainly for the legitimizing of the deep state rule; election of a
particular individual can change little, although there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch. If the individual stray too much form the elite "forign policy consensus" he
ether will be JFKed or Russiagated (with the Special Prosecutor as the fist act and impeachment
as the second act of the same Russiagate drama)
But a talented (or reckless) individual can speed up some process that are already under way.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process of destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal
empire considerably. Especially by launching the trade war with China. He also managed to
discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to believe A politician will/can change anything and give your consent to
war criminals and traitors?
NO person(s) WILL EVER get to the top in imperial/vassal state politics without being on the
rentier class side, the cognitive dissonans in voting for known liars, war criminals and
traitors would kill me or fry my brain. TINA is a lie and "she" is a real bitch that deserves
to be thrown on the dump off history, YOUR vote is YOUR consent to murder, theft and
treason.
DONT be a rentier class enabler STOP voting and start making your local communities better
and independent instead.
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me. <-
Norway
Of course, There Is Another Way, for example, kvetching. We can boldly show that we are
upset, and pessimistic. One upset pessimists reach critical mass we will think about some
actions.
But being upset and pessimistic does fully justify inactivity. In particular, given the
nature of social interaction networks, with spokes and hubs, dominating the network requires
the control of relatively few nodes. The nature of democracy always allows for leverage
takeover, starting from dominating within small to the entire nation in few steps. As it was
nicely explained by Prof. Overton, there is a window of positions that the vast majority
regards as reasonable, non-radical etc. One reason that powers to be invest so much energy
vilifying dissenters, Russian assets of late, is to keep them outside the Overton window.
Having a candidate elected that the curators of Overton window hate definitely shakes the
situation with the potential of shifting the window. There were some positive symptoms after
Trump was elected, but negatives prevail. "Why not we just kill him" idea entered the window,
together with "we took their oil because we have guts and common sense".
From that point of view, visibility of Tulsi and election of Sanders will solve some
problems but most of all, it will make big changes in Overton window.
"... Watched it. YouTube censored your "graphic content " because you clearly and " graphically " describe the truth. They can't handle the truth. ..."
"... According to SenBlackburn, Lt Vindman is the whistleblowers's handler. ..."
DEEP STATE and the mockingbirds are in FULL PANIC from where I am sitting. In this video
the new dig starts at about 10 minutes in but I also go over the fact that my last video
was very sneakily taken down!
Zer -- edge art (you'll have to replace letters & remove "0"s because if I don't take them
out I will probably get censored:
https://www.zer----e.com/geopolitical...
Imagine being on a jury and being told you will only be allowed to hear what the
prosecution has to say, because the prosecution doesn't want you to hear what the
defense team has to say.
My husband, a contractor and home builder noticed back in the 70s that there was an
incredible influx of Russian Tradesmen in the Chicagoland area. He wondered then if
it was the beginning of an infiltration coup.
Vanessa Beeley provides a short, incomplete, list.
I look at the pictures of today's refugees and see the faces of yesterday's. I see the
conditions they inhabit, the squalor and filth, and I see the same in pictures from the past.
I read the words of hatred directed at those innocents and recall the same words being said
of their predecessors.
And the source of the words and plight of the innocents both present
and past come from the same portals or power--The Imperialist West and its Zionist progeny.
How many millions have died to enrich their purse, to increase the size of the estates, to
serve as their slaves? How many more in the future will share their fate?
Will humans ever
evolve to become peaceful animals and save themselves?
Elections now serve mainly the legitimizing of the deep state rule function; election of a
partuclar induvudual can change little, althouth there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process od destruction of the USA-centered
neoliberal empire considerably. Especially by lauching the trade war with China. He also
managed to discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush
II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
Read the Yasha Levine material. Brilliant! Thanks.
Weirdly (to me) this evidence and dot-connecting aligns very well with some delving done
by the Canadian researcher Polly St. George, who goes by the moniker Amazing Polly. I find
nothing to criticize in AP's research and speculations. (She is also getting material from Q,
but since her own material is all heavily documented, I don't bother my head with the Q
business, as I cannot assess it.)
In one of her recent videos she traces the background of Lieutenant Vindman and others
who testified before Adam Schiff's committee about a month ago. Without recapping her
work check this out where she asks: Who are the Vindmans? Where did they come from? What is
their background? Why were they brought here? How and by whom?:
The Storm seems like it is here!!
DEEP STATE and the mockingbirds are in FULL PANIC from where I am sitting. In this video
the new dig starts at about 10 minutes in but I also go over the fact that my last video
was very sneakily taken down!
Zer -- edge art (you'll have to replace letters & remove "0"s because if I don't
take them out I will probably get censored:
https://www.zer----e.com/geopolitical...
For more info simply search AERODYNAMIC at the CIA reading room or use a regular
search engine. Also try "Prolog" and "Lebed"
This whole impeachment farce, November 2019 chapter, relied on the testimony of Soviet
Jews who are rabidly russophobic and who were brought to this country by . . . whom, exactly?
I believe Yasha Levine should also check out these links that Amazing Polly has revealed.
To the extent you can trust polls, that's an interesting development. biden is losing grip on
electorate due to impeachment noise., which hurts him directly.
Despite the establishment and media shenanigans designed to hurt Sanders, despite Hillary and
Warren's attempts to turn women against Sanders:
Bernie has just DOUBLED his lead on Biden in New Hampshire 29 to 14 and is now only 3
points behind Biden nationally in choice for President and leads Trump by 2 points in the
general. That figure will rise.
Bernie has the wind at his back. This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
to stop Trump's escalation on Iran, to stop Trump from turning the judiciary irreversibly to
the far right and making it his fascist tool, to make climate change the burning priority
that it is and to take power away from the oligarchs and empower people.
Bernie must make it. He is the only candidate who is genuine and can be trusted and is
VIABLE. Yes, many here want Gabbard but she is not viable in the race since she has not
gained any traction. The only hope I see for Gabbard's political career is if Sanders offers
her a cabinet position later, but not V-P because Gabbard's unpopularity right now will
certainly drag him down. Many want her primaried and then she may not win back her seat in
Congress. If he offers her an important cabinet position, she will regain in stature and
prove that she is presidential material. I see her as UN Ambassador and maybe at DoD. But
right now the V-P choice must be wisely assigned.
Sanders now has momentum and everyone must do their part to help him sustain it. This
opportunity must not be squandered! His defeat of the CORRUPT establishment is FUNDAMENTAL.
The entire planet needs a Sanders presidency to stop military escalation and address the
urgency of climate change. He must be supported all the way and Trump must fall to someone of
Sanders' authentic calibre.
This is the last opportunity we all have to stop the madness and corrupt oligarch control,
and make a global correction towards peace. I believe in this guy; I fear the irreversible
changes happening. I HAVE BEEN RIGHT ON MANY THINGS AND I'M CONVINCED OF THIS: EITHER WE ALL,
EVERYWHERE ON THIS PLANET, SUPPORT THIS MAN OR WE WILL BE POWERLESS
AND ARE DOOMED TO WHAT'S ALREADY UNFOLDING.
She is now trapped and has no space for maneuvering. She now needs to share the path to the
cliff with Pelosi gang to the very end. Not a good position to be in.
Analysis: The Massachusetts senator's forceful call to begin the process of removing Trump
set her apart from the crowded primary field.
While most fellow 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls ducked and dived to find safe ground
-- and party elders solemnly warned against over-reach -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren stepped boldly
out into the open late Friday and called on the House to begin an impeachment process against
President Donald Trump based on special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
The Massachusetts senator and 2020 Democratic presidential contender slammed Trump for
having "welcomed" the help of a "hostile" foreign government and having obstructed the probe
into an attack on an American election.
"To ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal
behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country," Warren tweeted. "The severity
of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political
considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate
impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States."
It was a rare moment in a crowded and unsettled primary: A seized opportunity for a
candidate to cut through the campaign trail cacophony and define the terms of a debate that
will rage throughout the contest.
Pelosi gang is too afraid to point to actual crimes (like Douma false flag, Yemen war, etc),
so they invented this Kabuki theater, as if they can fool already suspicious population.
You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you
can't fool all the people all the time. So said Abraham Lincoln – maybe. But whoever it
was forgot to mention an important corollary: fun as it may be to pull the wool over people's
eyes, you'll writhe in agony for an equal period once the truth emerges and the fraud is
exposed.
...the agony of those responsible for the Russiagate fiasco can only intensify while, for
the rest of us, the fun has just begun. So lean back and enjoy the show. It going to be a
doozy.
Former vice president Joe Biden's extraordinary campaign memo this week imploring U.S. news
media to reject the allegations surrounding his son Hunter's work for a Ukrainian natural gas
company makes several bold declarations.
The memo
by Biden campaign aides Kate Bedingfield and Tony Blinken specifically warned reporters
covering the impeachment trial they would be acting as "enablers of misinformation" if they
repeated allegations that the former vice president forced the firing of Ukraine's top
prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma Holdings, where Hunter Biden worked as a highly
compensated board member.
Biden's memo argues there is no evidence that the former vice president's or Hunter Biden's
conduct raised any concern, and that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin's investigation was
"dormant" when the vice president forced the prosecutor to be fired in Ukraine.
The memo
calls the allegation a "conspiracy theory" (and, in full disclosure, blames my reporting for
the allegations surfacing last year.)
But the memo omits critical impeachment testimony and other evidence that paint a far
different portrait than Biden's there's-nothing-to-talk-about-here rebuttal.
Here are the facts, with links to public evidence, so you can decide for yourself.
Fact:
Joe Biden admitted to forcing Shokin's firing in March 2016 .
It is irrefutable, and not a conspiracy theory, that Joe Biden bragged in
this 2018 speech to a foreign policy group that he threatened in March 2016 to withhold $1
billion in U.S. aid to Kiev if then-Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko didn't immediately
fire Shokin.
"I said, 'You're not getting the billion.' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was
about six hours. I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not
fired, you're not getting the money,'" Biden told the 2018 audience in recounting what he told
Poroshenko
"Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the
time," Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event.
Fact: Shokin's prosecutors were
actively investigating Burisma when he was fired.
While some news organizations cited by the Biden memo have reported the investigation was
"dormant" in March 2016, official files released by the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office,
in fact, show there was substantial investigative activity in the weeks just before Joe Biden
forced Shokin's firing.
The corruption investigations into Burisma and its founder began in 2014. Around the same
time, Hunter Biden and his U.S. business partner Devon Archer were
added to Burisma's board , and their Rosemont Seneca Bohais firm began receiving regular
$166,666 monthly payments, which totaled nearly $2 million a year. Both banks
records seized by the FBI in America and Burisma's own
ledgers in Ukraine confirm these payments.
To put the payments in perspective, the annual amounts paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden's and
Devon Archer's Rosemont Seneca Bohais firm were 30 times the average median annual household
income for everyday Americans.
For a period of time in 2015, those investigations were stalled as Ukraine was creating a
new FBI-like law enforcement agency known as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau ((NABU) to
investigate endemic corruption in the former Soviet republic.
There was friction between NABU and the prosecutor general's office for a while. And then in
September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt demanded more action in the
Burisma investigation. You can read
his speech here . Activity ramped up extensively soon after.
In December 2015, the prosecutor's files show, Shokin's office transferred the evidence it
had gathered against Burisma to NABU for investigation.
In early February 2016, Shokin's office secured a court order allowing
prosecutors to re-seize some of the Burisma founder's property, including his home and luxury
car, as part of the ongoing probe.
Two weeks later, in mid-February 2016, Latvian law enforcement
sent this alert to Ukrainian prosecutors flagging several payments from Burisma to American
accounts as "suspicious." The payments included some monies to Hunter Biden's and Devon
Archer's firm.
Latvian authorities recently confirmed it sent the alert.
Shokin told both me and
ABC News that just before he was fired under pressure from Joe Biden he also was making
plans to interview Hunter Biden.
Fact: Burisma's lawyers in 2016 were pressing U.S. and
Ukrainian authorities to end the corruption investigations.
Burisma's main U.S. lawyer John Buretta acknowledged in
this February 2017 interview with a Ukraine newspaper that the company remained under
investigation in 2016, until he negotiated for one case to be dismissed and the other to be
settled by payment of a large tax penalty.
Documents released under an open records lawsuit show Burisma legal team was pressuring the
State Department in February 2016 to end the corruption allegations against the gas firm and
specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as part of the campaign. You can read those documents
here .
In addition, immediately after Joe Biden succeeded in getting Shokin ousted, Burisma's
lawyers sought to meet with his successor as chief prosecutor to settle the case. Here is
the Ukrainian prosecutors' summary memo of one of their meetings with the firm's
lawyers.
Fact: There is substantial evidence Joe Biden and his office knew about the Burisma
probe and his son's role as a board member .
The New York Times reported in
this December 2015 article that the Burisma investigation was ongoing and Hunter Biden's
role in the company was undercutting Joe Biden's push to fight Ukrainian corruption. The
article quoted the vice president's office.
In addition, Hunter Biden acknowledged
in this interview he had discussed his Burisma job with his father on one occasion and that
his father responded by saying he hoped the younger Biden knew what he was doing.
Fact: Federal Ethics rules requires government officials to avoid taking policy actions
affecting close relatives.
Office of
Government Ethics rules require all government officials to recuse themselves from any
policy actions that could impact a close relative or cause a reasonable person to see the
appearance of a conflict of interest or question their impartiality.
"The impartiality rule requires an employee to consider appearance concerns before
participating in a particular matter if someone close to the employee is involved as a party to
the matter," these rules state. "This requirement to refrain from participating (or recuse) is
designed to avoid the appearance of favoritism in government decision-making."
Fact:
Multiple State Department officials testified the Bidens' dealings in Ukraine created the
appearance of a conflict of interest .
In
House impeachment testimony , Obama-era State Department officials declared the
juxtaposition of Joe Biden overseeing Ukraine policy, including the anti-corruption efforts, at
the same his son Hunter worked for a Ukraine gas firm under corruption investigation created
the appearance of a conflict of interest.
In fact, deputy assistant secretary George Kent said he was so concerned by Burisma's
corrupt reputation that he
blocked a project the State Department had with Burisma and tried to warn Joe Biden's
office about the concerns about an apparent conflict of interest.
Likewise, the House Democrats' star impeachment witness, former U.S. Ambassador Marie
Yovanovich, agreed the Bidens' role in Ukraine created an ethic issue. "I think that it
could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest," she
testified. You can read her testimony
here .
Fact: Hunter Biden acknowleged he may have gotten his Burisma job solely because
of his last name .
In
this interview last summer , Hunter Biden said it might have been a "mistake" to serve on
the Burisma board and that it was possible he was hired simply because of his proximity to the
vice president.
"If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would've been asked to be on the board of
Burisma?," a reporter asked.
"I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect," Hunter Biden answered. "But
that's -- you know -- I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my
life if my last name wasn't Biden."
Fact: Ukraine law enforcement reopened the Burisma
investigation in early 2019, well before President Trump mentioned the matter to Ukraine's new
president Vlodymyr Zelensky .
This may be the single biggest under-reported fact in the impeachment scandal: four months
before Trump and Zelensky had their infamous phone call, Ukraine law enforcement officials
officially reopened their investigation into Burisma and its founder.
The effort began independent of Trump or his lawyer Rudy Giuliani's legal work. In fact, it
was NABU -- the very agency Joe Biden and the Obama administration helped start -- that
recommended in February 2019 to reopen the probe.
NABU director Artem Sytnyk
made this announcement that he was recommending a new notice of suspicion be opened to
launch the case against Burisma and its founder because of new evidence uncovered by
detectives.
Ukrainian officials said that new evidence included records suggesting a possible money
laundering scheme dating to 2010 and continuing until 2015.
A month later in March 2019, Deputy Prosecutor General Konstantin Kulyk officially filed
this
notice of suspicion re-opening the case.
And Reuters recently quoted Ukrainian officials as saying the
ongoing probe was expanded to allegations of theft of public funds.
The implications of this timetable are significant to the Trump impeachment trial because
the president couldn't have pressured Ukraine to re-open the investigation in July 2019 when
Kiev had already done so on its own, months earlier.
Establishment Democrats are gaslighting people. This is not a qualitative improvement over
what the establishment Republicans do. In fact, it makes the establishment republicans
correct when the gaslighting is pointed out. The Trump Derangement Syndrome and corrupt basis
of the Democrats only helps get Trump re elected. The Democrats have no better plan, and thus
will be responsible if Trump gets re elected.
They're all scumbags, at all levels, and if you ain't used to it by now, you've been
living under a rock. That said, it's nice to have some reporting on it and I hope all levels
of government abuse will get exposed. I'm assuming it's about the same time the little bug
eyed broad takes a job at an oil company...
~"I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be
leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m
leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the
money,’” Biden told the 2018 audience in recounting what he told Poroshenko
“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at
the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event."
Isn't this the same fuckin thing as???... **** it, nevermind
Yet nobody has been arrested, indicted, or accused of anything except in odd corners of
the internet. Although, there have been a couple of fake show investigations.
So, the only conclusion I can draw is it's legal if the Democrats or Establishment do it.
And anyone who says otherwise needs to be jailed, ruined, or murdered, such as in the case of
Seth Rich.
All members are press, state department, and American oligarchs. Trust ME, I know what
goes on there. Investigate them ALL and keep all of the investigation interviews in an open
public domain.
Force people to distance themselves and quit membership and you can pick them off as they
conspire to reform their separate working groups.
Facts? Democraps don't care about facts, don't you know that already? Democraps only care
about feeeeeelings, and how it makes someone feeeeel... Facts are just those things they just
discard, and then hope that we the Sheeple have short memories. Biden? Guilty as sin. Facts?
Ignore. Same as Cankles, Comey, Strozk, Page, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. If you're a
Democrap, you get off scot free, then lie about everything.
"... The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports. So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. ..."
"... After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement." ..."
"... It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive. ..."
After the feed was cut, MPs who were present wrote down Abdul-Mahdi's remarks, which were
then given to the Arabic news outlet Ida'at .
Per that transcript , Abdul-Mahdi stated that:
The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They
have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have
bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports.
So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement
with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. "
Abdul-Mahdi continued his remarks, noting that pressure from the Trump administration over
his negotiations and subsequent dealings with China grew substantially over time, even
resulting in death threats to himself and his defense minister:
After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me.
Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the
event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be
mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and
kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and
submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement."
"I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist to this day
on canceling the China agreement. When the defense minister said that those killing the
demonstrators was a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically threatened myself
and the defense minister in the event that there was more talk about this third party."
Very few English language outlets
reported on Abdul-Mahdi's comments. Tom Luongo, a Florida-based Independent Analyst and publisher of The Gold
Goats 'n Guns Newsletter, told MintPress that the likely reasons for the "surprising"
media silence over Abdul-Mahdi's claims were because "It never really made it out into official
channels " due to the cutting of the video feed during Iraq's Parliamentary session and due to
the fact that "it's very inconvenient and the media -- since Trump is doing what they want him
to do, be belligerent with Iran, protected Israel's interests there."
"They aren't going to contradict him on that if he's playing ball," Luongo added, before
continuing that the media would nonetheless "hold onto it for future reference .If this comes
out for real, they'll use it against him later if he tries to leave Iraq." "Everything in
Washington is used as leverage," he added.
Given the lack of media coverage and the cutting of the video feed of Abdul-Mahdi's full
remarks, it is worth pointing out that the narrative he laid out in his censored speech not
only fits with the timeline of recent events he discusses but also the tactics known to have
been employed behind closed doors by the Trump administration, particularly after Mike Pompeo
left the CIA to become Secretary of State.
For instance, Abdul-Mahdi's delegation to China ended on September 24, with the protests
against his government that Trump reportedly threatened to start on October 1. Reports of a
"third side" firing on Iraqi protesters were picked up by major media outlets at the time, such
as in this
BBC report which stated:
Reports say the security forces opened fire, but another account says unknown gunmen
were responsible .a source in Karbala told the BBC that one of the dead was a guard at a
nearby Shia shrine who happened to be passing by. The source also said the origin of the
gunfire was unknown and it had targeted both the protesters and security forces .
(emphasis added)"
U.S.-backed protests in other countries, such as in Ukraine in 2014, also saw evidence of a
"
third side " shooting both protesters and security forces alike.
After six weeks of intense protests , Abdul-Mahdi
submitted
his resignation on November 29, just a few days after Iraq's
Foreign Minister praised the new deals, including the "oil for reconstruction" deal, that had
been signed with China. Abdul-Mahdi has since stayed on as Prime Minister in a caretaker role
until Parliament decides on his replacement.
Abdul-Mahdi's claims of the covert pressure by the Trump administration are buttressed by
the use of similar tactics against Ecuador, where, in July 2018, a U.S. delegation at the
United Nations
threatened the nation with punitive trade measures and the withdrawal of military aid if
Ecuador moved forward with the introduction of a UN resolution to "protect, promote and support
breastfeeding."
The New York Times reported at the time that the U.S. delegation was seeking to
promote the interests of infant formula manufacturers. If the U.S. delegation is willing to use
such pressure on nations for promoting breastfeeding over infant formula, it goes without
saying that such behind-closed-doors pressure would be significantly more intense if a much
more lucrative resource, e.g. oil, were involved.
Regarding Abdul-Mahdi's claims, Luongo told MintPress that it is also worth
considering that it could have been anyone in the Trump administration making threats to
Abdul-Mahdi, not necessarily Trump himself. "What I won't say directly is that I don't know it
was Trump at the other end of the phone calls. Mahdi, it is to his best advantage politically
to blame everything on Trump. It could have been Mike Pompeo or Gina Haspel talking to
Abdul-Mahdi It could have been anyone, it most likely would be someone with plausible
deniability .This [Mahdi's claims] sounds credible I firmly believe Trump is capable of making
these threats but I don't think Trump would make those threats directly like that, but it would
absolutely be consistent with U.S. policy."
Luongo also argued that the current tensions between U.S. and Iraqi leadership preceded the
oil deal between Iraq and China by several weeks, "All of this starts with Prime Minister Mahdi
starting the process of opening up the Iraq-Syria border crossing and that was announced in
August. Then, the Israeli air attacks happened in September to try and stop that from
happening, attacks on PMU forces on the border crossing along with the ammo dump attacks near
Baghdad This drew the Iraqis' ire Mahdi then tried to close the air space over Iraq, but how
much of that he can enforce is a big question."
As to why it would be to Mahdi's advantage to blame Trump, Luongo stated that Mahdi "can
make edicts all day long, but, in reality, how much can he actually restrain the U.S. or the
Israelis from doing anything? Except for shame, diplomatic shame To me, it [Mahdi's claims]
seems perfectly credible because, during all of this, Trump is probably or someone else is
shaking him [Mahdi] down for the reconstruction of the oil fields [in Iraq] Trump has
explicitly stated "we want the oil."'
As Luongo noted, Trump's interest in the U.S. obtaining a significant share of Iraqi oil
revenue is hardly a secret. Just last March, Trump
asked Abdul-Mahdi "How about the oil?" at the end of a meeting at the White House,
prompting Abdul-Mahdi to ask "What do you mean?" To which Trump responded "Well, we did a lot,
we did a lot over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking
about the oil," which was widely interpreted as Trump asking for part of Iraq's oil revenue in
exchange for the steep costs of the U.S.' continuing its now unwelcome military presence in
Iraq.
With Abdul-Mahdi having rejected Trump's "oil for reconstruction" proposal in favor of
China's, it seems likely that the Trump administration would default to so-called "gangster
diplomacy" tactics to pressure Iraq's government into accepting Trump's deal, especially given
the fact that China's deal was a much better offer. While Trump demanded half of Iraq's oil
revenue in exchange for completing reconstruction projects (according to Abdul-Mahdi), the deal
that was signed between Iraq and China would see around
20 percen t of Iraq's oil revenue go to China in exchange for reconstruction. Aside from
the potential loss in Iraq's oil revenue, there are many reasons for the Trump administration
to feel threatened by China's recent dealings in Iraq.
The Iraq-China oil deal – a prelude to something more?
When Abdul-Mahdi's delegation traveled to Beijing last September, the "oil for
reconstruction" deal was only
one of eight total agreements that were established. These agreements cover a range of
areas, including financial, commercial, security, reconstruction, communication, culture,
education and foreign affairs in addition to oil. Yet, the oil deal is by far the most
significant.
Per the agreement, Chinese firms will work on various reconstruction projects in exchange
for roughly 20 percent of Iraq's oil exports, approximately 100,00 barrels per day, for a
period of 20 years. According to Al-Monitor
, Abdul-Mahdi had the following to say about the deal: "We agreed [with Beijing] to set up a
joint investment fund, which the oil money will finance," adding that the agreement prohibits
China from monopolizing projects inside Iraq, forcing Bejing to work in cooperation with
international firms.
The agreement is similar to one negotiated
between Iraq and China in 2015 when Abdul-Mahdi was serving as Iraq's oil minister. That
year, Iraq joined China's Belt and Road Initiative in a deal that also involved exchanging oil
for investment, development and construction projects and saw China awarded several projects as
a result. In a notable similarity to recent events, that deal was put on hold due to "political
and security tensions" caused by unrest and the surge of ISIS in Iraq, that is until
Abdul-Mahdi saw Iraq rejoin the
initiative again late last year through the agreements his government signed with China
last September.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, center left, meet with Iraqi Prime Minister
Adil Abdul-Mahdi, center right, in Beijing, Sept. 23, 2019. Lintao Zhang | AP
Notably, after recent tensions between the U.S. and Iraq over the assassination of Soleimani
and the U.S.' subsequent refusal to remove its troops from Iraq despite parliament's demands,
Iraq quietly announced that it would dramatically increase its oil exports to China to
triple the
amount established in the deal signed in September. Given Abdul-Mahdi's recent claims about
the true forces behind Iraq's recent protests and Trump's threats against him being directly
related to his dealings with China, the move appears to be a not-so-veiled signal from
Abdul-Mahdi to Washington that he plans to deepen Iraq's partnership with China, at least for
as long as he remains in his caretaker role.
Iraq's decision to dramatically increase its oil exports to China came just one day after
the U.S. government
threatened to cut off Iraq's access to its central bank account, currently held at the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, an account that
currently holds $35 billion in Iraqi oil revenue. The account was
set up after the U.S. invaded and began occupying Iraq in 2003 and Iraq currently removes
between $1-2 billion per month to cover essential government expenses. Losing access to its oil
revenue stored in that account would lead to the "
collapse " of Iraq's government, according to Iraqi government officials who spoke to
AFP .
Though Trump publicly promised to rebuke Iraq for the expulsion of U.S. troops via
sanctions, the threat to cut off Iraq's access to its account at the NY Federal Reserve Bank
was delivered privately and directly to the Prime Minister, adding further credibility to
Abdul-Mahdi's claims that Trump's most aggressive attempts at pressuring Iraq's government are
made in private and directed towards the country's Prime Minister.
Though Trump's push this time was about preventing the expulsion of U.S. troops from Iraq,
his reasons for doing so may also be related to concerns about China's growing foothold in the
region. Indeed, while Trump has now lost his desired share of Iraqi oil revenue (50 percent) to
China's counteroffer of 20 percent, the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq may see American
troops replaced with their Chinese counterparts as well, according to Tom Luongo.
"All of this is about the U.S. maintaining the fiction that it needs to stay in Iraq So,
China moving in there is the moment where they get their toe hold for the Belt and Road
[Initiative]," Luongo argued. "That helps to strengthen the economic relationship between Iraq,
Iran and China and obviating the need for the Americans to stay there. At some point, China
will have assets on the ground that they are going to want to defend militarily in the event of
any major crisis. This brings us to the next thing we know, that Mahdi and the Chinese
ambassador discussed that very thing in the wake of the Soleimani killing."
Indeed, according to news reports, Zhang Yao -- China's ambassador to Iraq -- " conveyed
Beijing's readiness to provide military assistance" should Iraq's government request it
soon after Soleimani's assassination. Yao made the offer a day after Iraq's parliament voted to
expel American troops from the country. Though it is currently unknown how Abdul-Mahdi
responded to the offer, the timing likely caused no shortage of concern among the Trump
administration about its rapidly waning influence in Iraq. "You can see what's coming here,"
Luongo told MintPress of the recent Chinese offer to Iraq, "China, Russia and Iran are
trying to cleave Iraq away from the United States and the U.S. is feeling very threatened by
this."
Russia is also playing a role in the current scenario as Iraq initiated talks with Moscow
regarding the
possible purchase of one of its air defense systems last September, the same month that
Iraq signed eight deals, including the oil deal with China. Then, in the wake of Soleimani's
death, Russia
again offered the air defense systems to Iraq to allow them to better defend their air
space. In the past, the U.S.
has threatened allied countries with sanctions and other measures if they purchase Russian
air defense systems as opposed to those manufactured by U.S. companies.
The U.S.' efforts to curb China's growing influence and presence in Iraq amid these new
strategic partnerships and agreements are limited, however, as the U.S. is increasingly relying on China
as part of its Iran policy, specifically in its goal of reducing Iranian oil export to zero.
China remains Iran's main crude oil and condensate importer, even after it reduced its imports
of Iranian oil significantly following U.S. pressure last year. Yet, the U.S. is now attempting to
pressure China to stop buying Iranian oil completely or face sanctions while also
attempting to privately sabotage the China-Iraq oil deal. It is highly unlikely China will
concede to the U.S. on both, if any, of those fronts, meaning the U.S. may be forced to choose
which policy front (Iran "containment" vs. Iraq's oil dealings with China) it values more in
the coming weeks and months.
Furthermore, the recent signing of the "phase one" trade deal with China revealed another
potential facet of the U.S.' increasingly complicated relationship with Iraq's oil sector given
that the trade deal
involves selling U.S. oil and gas to China at very low cost , suggesting that the Trump
administration may also see the Iraq-China oil deal result in Iraq emerging as a potential
competitor for the U.S. in selling cheap oil to China, the world's top oil importer.
The Petrodollar and the Phantom of the Petroyuan
In his televised statements last week following Iran's military response to the U.S.
assassination of General Soleimani, Trump insisted that the U.S.' Middle East policy is no
longer being directed by America's vast oil requirements. He
stated specifically that:
Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before
and America has achieved energy independence. These historic accomplishments changed our
strategic priorities. These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible. And
options in the Middle East became available. We are now the number-one producer of oil and
natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need Middle East
oil . (emphasis added)"
Yet, given the centrality of the recent Iraq-China oil deal in guiding some of the Trump
administration's recent Middle East policy moves, this appears not to be the case. The
distinction may lie in the fact that, while the U.S. may now be less dependent on oil imports
from the Middle East, it still very much needs to continue to dominate how oil is traded and
sold on international markets in order to maintain its status as both a global military
and financial superpower.
Indeed, even if the U.S. is importing less Middle Eastern oil, the petrodollar system --
first forged in the 1970s -- requires that the U.S. maintains enough control over the global
oil trade so that the world's largest oil exporters, Iraq among them, continue to sell their
oil in dollars. Were Iraq to sell oil in another currency, or trade oil for services, as it
plans to do with China per the recently inked deal, a significant portion of Iraqi oil would
cease to generate a demand for dollars, violating the key tenet of the petrodollar
system.
Chinese representatives speak to defense personnel during a weapons expo organized
by the Iraqi defense ministry in Baghdad, March, 2017. Karim Kadim | AP
The takeaway from the petrodollar phenomenon is that as long as countries need oil, they
will need the dollar. As long as countries demand dollars, the U.S. can continue to go into
massive amounts of debt to fund its network of global military bases, Wall Street bailouts,
nuclear missiles, and tax cuts for the rich."
Thus, the use of the petrodollar has created a system whereby U.S. control of oil sales of
the largest oil exporters is necessary, not just to buttress the dollar, but also to support
its global military presence. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the issue of the U.S. troop
presence in Iraq and the issue of Iraq's push for oil independence against U.S. wishes have
become intertwined. Notably, one of the architects of the petrodollar system and the man who
infamously described U.S. soldiers as "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign
policy", former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has been advising
Trump and informing his China policy since 2016.
This take was also expressed by economist Michael Hudson,
who recently noted that U.S. access to oil, dollarization and U.S. military strategy are
intricately interwoven and that Trump's recent Iraq policy is intended "to escalate America's
presence in Iraq to keep control of the region's oil reserves," and, as Hudson says, "to back
Saudi Arabia's Wahabi troops (ISIS, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are
actually America's foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of
the U.S. dollar."
Hudson further asserts that it was Qassem Soleimani's efforts to promote Iraq's oil
independence at the expense of U.S. imperial ambitions that served one of the key motives
behind his assassination.
America opposed General Suleimani above all because he was fighting against ISIS and other
U.S.-backed terrorists in their attempt to break up Syria and replace Assad's regime with a
set of U.S.-compliant local leaders – the old British "divide and conquer" ploy. On
occasion, Suleimani had cooperated with U.S. troops in fighting ISIS groups that got "out of
line" meaning the U.S. party line. But every indication is that he was in Iraq to work
with that government seeking to regain control of the oil fields that President Trump has
bragged so loudly about grabbing. (emphasis added)"
Hudson adds that " U.S. neocons feared Suleimani's plan to help Iraq assert control of its
oil and withstand the terrorist attacks supported by U.S. and Saudi's on Iraq. That is what
made his assassination an immediate drive."
While other factors -- such as pressure
from U.S. allies such as Israel -- also played a factor in the decision to kill Soleimani,
the decision to assassinate him on Iraqi soil just hours before he was set to meet with
Abdul-Mahdi in a diplomatic role suggests that the underlying tensions caused by Iraq's push
for oil independence and its oil deal with China did play a factor in the timing of his
assassination. It also served as a threat to Abdul-Mahdi, who has claimed that the U.S.
threatened to kill both him and his defense minister just weeks prior over tensions directly
related to the push for independence of Iraq's oil sector from the U.S.
It appears that the ever-present role of the petrodollar in guiding U.S. policy in the
Middle East remains unchanged. The petrodollar has long been a driving factor behind the U.S.'
policy towards Iraq specifically, as one of the key triggers for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was
Saddam Hussein's decision to sell Iraqi oil in Euros opposed to dollars beginning in the year
2000. Just weeks before the invasion began, Hussein boasted that Iraq's Euro-based oil revenue
account was earning a higher interest rate than
it would have been if it had continued to sell its oil in dollars, an apparent signal to other
oil exporters that the petrodollar system was only really benefiting the United States at their
own expense.
Beyond current efforts to stave off Iraq's oil independence and keep its oil trade aligned
with the U.S., the fact that the U.S. is now seeking to limit China's ever-growing role in
Iraq's oil sector is also directly related to China's publicly known efforts to create its own
direct competitor to the petrodollar, the petroyuan.
Since 2017, China has made its plans for the petroyuan -- a direct competitor to the
petrodollar -- no secret, particularly after China eclipsed the U.S. as the world's largest
importer of oil.
The new strategy is to enlist the energy markets' help: Beijing may introduce a new way to
price oil in coming months -- but unlike the contracts based on the U.S. dollar that currently dominate global
markets, this benchmark would use China's own currency. If there's widespread adoption, as the
Chinese hope, then that will mark a step toward challenging the greenback's status as the
world's most powerful currency .The plan is to price oil in yuan using a gold-backed futures contract in
Shanghai, but the road will be long and arduous."
If the U.S. continues on its current path and pushes Iraq further into the arms of China and
other U.S. rival states, it goes without saying that Iraq -- now a part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative -- may soon favor a petroyuan system over a petrodollar system, particularly as the
current U.S. administration threatens to hold Iraq's central bank account hostage for pursuing
policies Washington finds unfavorable.
It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold
in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but
could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global
financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having
the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make
the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive.
One can see how all these recent wars and military actions have a financial motive at their
core. Yet the mass of gullible Americans actually believe the reasons given, to "spread
democracy" and other wonderful things. Only a small number can see things for what they really
are. It's very frustrating to deal with the stupidity of the average person on a daily basis.
This is not Trump's policy, it is American policy and the variation is in how he implements
it. Any other person would have fallen in line with it as well. US policy has it's own inner
momentum that can't change course. The US depends upon continuation of the dollar as the
world's reserve currency. Were that to be lost the US likely would descend into chaos without
end. When the USSR came apart it was eventually able to downsize into the Russian state. We
don't have that here; there is no core ethnicity with it's own territory left anymore, it's
just a jumble. For the US it's a matter of survival.
"... In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did. ..."
"... The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing" -- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news "alternative fact." ..."
In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its
ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for
all the good it did.
A few days later, Trump killed a high level Iranian military leader and I have decided a
post is in order, never mind that a round of tiddlywinks will have about the same influence as
a post here. The wars just keep on coming, no matter what we do.
Let's turn to social media where dimwits, neocon partisans, and clueless Democrats are
running wild after corporate Mafia boss and numero uno Israeli cheerleader Donald Trump ordered
a hit on Gen. Qasem Soleimani and others near Baghdad's international airport on Thursday.
Let's begin with this teleprompter reader and "presenter" from Al Jazeera:
"This is what happens when you put a narcissistic, megalomaniacal, former reality TV star
with a thin skin and a very large temper in charge of the world's most powerful military You
know who else attacks cultural sites? ISIS. The Taliban." – me on Trump/Iran on MSNBC
today: pic.twitter.com/YCRARB2anv
It is interesting how the memory of such people only goes back to the election of Donald
Trump.
The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing"
-- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property,
and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the
nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international
terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake
news "alternative fact."
Here's another idiot. He was the boss of the DNC for a while and unsuccessfully ran for
president.
Nice job trump and Pompeo you dimwits. You've completed the neocon move to have Iraq
become a satellite of Iran. You have to be the dumbest people ever to run the US government.
You can add that to being the most corrupt. Get these guys out of here. https://t.co/gQHhHSeiJQ
Once again, history is lost in a tangle of lies and omission. Centuries before John Dean
thought it might be a good idea to run for president, Persians and Shias in what is now Iraq
and Iran were crossing the border -- later drawn up by invading Brits and French -- in
pilgrimages to the shrines of Imam Husayn and Abbas in Karbala. We can't expect an arrogant
sociopath like Mr. Dean to know about Ashura, Shia pilgrimages, the Remembrance of Muharram,
and events dating back to 680 AD.
Shias from Iran pilgrimage to other Iraqi cities as well, including An-Najaf, Samarra,
Mashhad, and Baghdad (although the latter is more important to Sunnis).
Corporate fake news teleprompter reader Stephanopoulos said the Geneva Conventions
(including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347) outlaw the targeting of cultural
sites, which Trump said he will bomb.
Trump said there are 52 different sites; the number is not arbitrary, it is based on the 52
hostages, many of them CIA officers, taken hostage during Iran's revolution against the
US-installed Shah and his brutal secret police sadists.
Pompeo said Trump won't destroy Iran's cultural and heritage sites. Pompeo, as a dedicated
Zionist operative, knows damn well the US will destroy EVERYTHING of value in Iran, same as it
did in Iraq and later Libya and Syria. This includes not only cultural sites, but civilian
infrastructure -- hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, and mosques.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Geneva Conventions outlaws attacks on cultural objects & places of
worship. Why is Trump threatening Iran w/ war crimes?
POMPEO: We'll behave lawfully
S: So to be clear, Trump's threat wasn't accurate?
Although I believe Jill Stein is living in a Marxian fantasy world, I agree with her tweet
in regard to the Zionist hit on Soleimani:
Now THIS is grounds for #impeachment
– treachery unleashing the unthinkable for Americans & people the world over: Trump
asked Iraqi prime minister to mediate with #Iran then
assassinated Soleimani – on a mediation mission. https://t.co/f0F9FEMALD
Trump should be impeached -- tried and imprisoned -- not in response to some dreamed-up and
ludicrous Russian plot or even concern about the opportunist Hunter Biden using his father's
position to make millions in uber-corrupt Ukraine, but because he is a war criminal responsible
for killing women and children.
As for the planned forever military occupation of Iraq,
USA Today reports:
Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told lawmakers that a timetable for the withdrawal
of all foreign troops, including U.S. ones, was required "for the sake of our national
sovereignty." About 5,000 American troops are in various parts of Iraq.
The latest:
-- Iraqi lawmakers voted to oust U.S. troops
-- U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS has paused operations
-- Hundreds of thousands mourned General Suleimani in Iran
-- President Trump said the U.S. has 52 possible targets in Iran in case of retaliation
https://t.co/pmUuAQdKlc
No way in hell will Sec. State Pompeo and his Zionist neocon handlers allow this to happen
without a fight. However, it shouldn't be too difficult for the Iraqis to expel 5,000
brainwashed American soldiers from the country, bombed to smithereens almost twenty years ago
by Bush the Neocon Idiot Savant.
Never mind Schumer's pretend concern about another war. This friend of Israel from New York
didn't go on national television and excoriate Obama and his cutthroat Sec. of State Hillary
Clinton for killing 30,000 Libyans.
I'm concerned President Trump's impulsive foreign policy is dragging America into another
endless war in the Middle East that will make us less safe.
Meanwhile, it looks like social media is burning the midnight oil in order to prevent their
platforms being used to argue against Trump's latest Zionist-directed insanity.
It is absolutely crazy that Twitter is auto-locking the accounts of anyone who posts this
"No war on Iran" image, and forcing them to delete the anti-war tweet in order to unlock
their account.
This is complete and utter bullshit, but I'm sure the American people will gobble it down
without question. Trump's advisers are neocons and they are seriously experienced in the art of
promoting and engineering assassination, cyber-attacks, invasions, and mass murder.
Newsmax scribbler John Cardillo thinks he has it all figure out.
"In mid-October Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and
other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using
sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran "
Imagine this, however improbable and ludicrous: Iran invades America and assassinates
General Hyten or General McConville, both top members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now
imagine the response by the "exceptional nation."
We can't leave out the Christian Zionist from Indiana, Mike Pence. Mike wants you to believe
Iran was responsible for 9/11, thus stirring up the appropriate animosity and consensus for
mass murder.
Neither Iran nor Soleimani were linked to the terror attack in the "9/11 Commission
Report." Pence didn't even get the number of hijackers right. https://t.co/QtQZm2Yyh9
Finally, here is the crown jewel of propaganda -- in part responsible for the death of well
over a million Iraqis -- The New York Times showing off its rampant hypocrisy.
In Opinion
The editorial board writes, "It is crucial that influential Republican senators like
Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind President Trump of his promise to keep
America out of foreign quagmires" https://t.co/2swusvBWbg
Never mind Judith Miller, the Queen of NYT pro-war propaganda back in the day, spreading
neocon fabricated lies about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. America -- or
rather the United States (the government) -- is addicted to quagmires and never-ending war.
This is simply more anti-Trump bullshit by the NYT editorial board. The newspaper loves war
waged in the name of Israel, but only if jumpstarted by Democrats.
Trump the fool, the fact-free reality TV president will eventually unleash the dogs of war
against Iran, much to the satisfaction of Israel, its racist Zionists, Israel-first neocons in
America, and the chattering pro-war class of "journalists," and "foreign policy experts" (most
former Pentagon employees).
Expect more nonsense like that dispensed by the robot Mike Pence, the former tank commander
now serving as Sec. of State, and any number of neocon fellow travelers, many with coveted blue
checkmarks on Twitter while the truth-tellers are expelled from the conversation and exiled to
the political wilderness.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this
article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
Although Joe Biden very often denounces the "cancer of corruption", this first episode shows
that he has lied several times, and that his attitude remains very questionable on this
subject.
You will discover three characters at the heart of UkraineGate. First, Mykola Zlochevsky,
the Ukrainian oligarch through whom the scandal happened. Then, General prosecutor Viktor
Shokin, whose resignation was obtained under pressure from Joe Biden, less than ten months
after his appointment. And finally, the latter's successor, Yuriy Lutsenko, whom Biden was
quick to describe as a "solid man"
This second episode focuses on the investigations of General prosecutor Shokin, described as
"dormant" by the Biden clan. It demonstrates the fallacy of the narrative launched by Biden's
communication advisors. But you will also discover that Biden's defense - widely reported by
the mainstream media without any verification - has been challenged by Viktor Shokin in various
interviews, of which we reveal several excerpts that have never been broadcast...
Neoliberals are mostly neocons and neocons are mostly neoliberals. They can't understand the
importance of Brexit and the first real crack in neoliberal globalization facade.
She really was on the wrong side of history: a tragedy for a politician. EU crumles with the
end of her political career which was devoted to straightening EU and neoliberalism, as well as
serving as the USA vassal. While she was sucessful in extracting benefits for Germany
multinationals she increased Germany dependency (and subservience) on the USA. She also will be
remembered for her handing of Greece crisis.
Notable quotes:
"... The UK's departure will continue to hang over Brussels and Berlin -- the countdown for a trade deal will coincide with Germany's presidency of the EU in the second half of this year. ..."
"... Brexit is a "wake-up call" for the EU. Europe must, she says, respond by upping its game, becoming "attractive, innovative, creative, a good place for research and education . . . Competition can then be very productive." This is why the EU must continue to reform, completing the digital single market, progressing with banking union -- a plan to centralise the supervision and crisis management of European banks -- and advancing capital markets union to integrate Europe's fragmented equity and debt markets. ..."
"... its defence budget has increased by 40 per cent since 2015, which is "a huge step from Germany's perspective". ..."
"... Ms Merkel will doubtless be remembered for two bold moves that changed Germany -- ordering the closure of its nuclear power stations after the Fukushima disaster of 2011, and keeping the country's borders open at the height of the 2015 refugee crisis. That decision was her most controversial, and there are some in Germany who still won't forgive her for it. But officials say Germany survived the influx, and has integrated the more than 1m migrants who arrived in 2015-16. ..."
It's a grim winter's day in Berlin, and the political climate matches the weather.
Everywhere Angela Merkel looks there are storm clouds, as the values she has upheld all her
career come under sustained attack. At the start of a new decade, Europe's premier stateswoman
suddenly seems to be on the wrong side of history.Shortly, the UK will leave the EU. A volatile
US president is snubbing allies and going it alone in the Middle East. Vladimir Putin is
changing the Russian constitution and meddling in Libya and sub-Saharan Africa. Trade tensions
continue, threatening the open borders and globalised value chains that are the cornerstones of
Germany's prosperity.
Ms Merkel, a former physicist renowned for her imperturbable, rational manner is a
politician programmed for compromise. But today she faces an uncompromising world where liberal
principles have been shoved aside by the law of the jungle.
Her solution is to double down on Europe, Germany's anchor. "I see the European Union as our
life insurance," she says. "Germany is far too small to exert geopolitical influence on its
own, and that's why we need to make use of all the benefits of the single market."
Speaking in the chancellery's Small Cabinet Room, an imposing wood-panelled hall overlooking
Berlin's Tiergarten park, Ms Merkel does not come across as under pressure. She is calm, if
somewhat cagey, weighing every word and seldom displaying emotion.
But the message she conveys in a rare interview is nonetheless urgent. In the twilight of
her career -- her fourth and final term ends in 2021 -- Ms Merkel is determined to preserve and
defend multilateralism, a concept that in the age of Trump, Brexit and a resurgent Russia has
never seemed so embattled. This is the "firm conviction" that guides her: the pursuit of "the
best win-win situations . . . when partnerships of benefit to both
sides are put into practice worldwide". She admits that this idea is coming "under increasing
pressure". The system of supranational institutions like the EU and United Nations were, she
says, "essentially a lesson learnt from the second world war, and the preceding decades". Now,
with so few witnesses of the war still alive, the importance of that lesson is fading.
Of course President Donald Trump is right that bodies like the World Trade Organization and
the UN require reform. "There is no doubt whatsoever about any of that," she says. "But I do
not call the world's multilateral structure into question. "Germany has been the great
beneficiary of Nato, an enlarged EU and globalisation. Free trade has opened up vast new
markets for its world-class cars, machines and chemicals. Sheltered under the US nuclear
umbrella, Germany has barely spared a thought for its own security. But the rise of "Me First"
nationalism threatens to leave it economically and politically unmoored. In this sense, Europe
is existential for German interests, as well as its identity.
Ms Merkel therefore wants to strengthen the EU -- an institution that she, perhaps more than
any other living politician, has come to personify. She steered Europe through the eurozone
debt crisis, albeit somewhat tardily: she held Europe together as it imposed sanctions on
Russia over the annexation of Crimea; she maintained unity in response to the trauma of
Brexit.
The UK's departure will continue to hang over Brussels and Berlin -- the countdown for a
trade deal will coincide with Germany's presidency of the EU in the second half of this
year. Berlin worries a post-Brexit UK that reserves the right to diverge from EU rules on
goods, workers' rights, taxes and environmental standards could create a serious economic
competitor on its doorstep. But Ms Merkel remains a cautious optimist. Brexit is a "wake-up
call" for the EU. Europe must, she says, respond by upping its game, becoming "attractive,
innovative, creative, a good place for research and
education . . . Competition can then be very productive." This is
why the EU must continue to reform, completing the digital single market, progressing with
banking union -- a plan to centralise the supervision and crisis management of European banks
-- and advancing capital markets union to integrate Europe's fragmented equity and debt
markets.
In what sounds like a new European industrial policy, Ms Merkel also says the EU should
identify the technological capabilities it lacks and move fast to fill in the gaps. "I believe
that chips should be manufactured in the European Union, that Europe should have its own
hyperscalers and that it should be possible to produce battery cells," she says. It must also
have the confidence to set the new global digital standards. She cites the example of the
General Data Protection Regulation, which supporters see as a gold standard for privacy and
proof that the EU can become a rulemaker, rather than a rule taker, when it comes to the
digital economy. Europe can offer an alternative to the US and Chinese approach to data. "I
firmly believe that personal data does not belong to the state or to companies," she says. "It
must be ensured that the individual has sovereignty over their own data and can decide with
whom and for what purpose they share it."
The continent's scale and diversity also make it hard to reach a consensus on reform. Europe
is deeply split: the migration crisis of 2015 opened up a chasm between the liberal west and
countries like Viktor Orban's Hungary which has not healed. Even close allies like Germany and
France have occasionally locked horns: Berlin's cool response to Emmanuel Macron's reform
initiatives back in 2017 triggered anger in Paris, while the French president's unilateral
overture to Mr Putin last year provoked irritation in Berlin. And when it comes to reform of
the eurozone, divisions still exist between fiscally challenged southern Europeans and the
fiscally orthodox new Hanseatic League of northern countries.
Ms Merkel remains to a degree hostage to German public opinion. Germany, she admits, is
still "slightly hesitant" on banking union, "because our principle is that everyone first needs
to reduce the risks in their own country today before we can mutualise the risks". And capital
markets union might require member states to seek closer alignment on things like insolvency
law. These divisions pale in comparison to the gulf between Europe and the US under president
Donald Trump. Germany has become the administration's favourite punching bag, lambasted for its
relatively low defence spending, big current account surplus and imports of Russian gas. German
business dreads Mr Trump making good on his threat to impose tariffs on European cars.
It is painful for Ms Merkel, whose career took off after unification. In an interview last
year she described how, while coming of age in communist East Germany, she yearned to make a
classic American road trip: "See the Rocky Mountains, drive around and listen to Bruce
Springsteen -- that was my dream," she told Der Spiegel.
The poor chemistry between Ms Merkel and Mr Trump has been widely reported. But are the
latest tensions in the German-US relationship just personal -- or is there more to it? "I think
it has structural causes," she says. For years now, Europe and Germany have been slipping down
the US's list of priorities.
"There's been a shift," she says. "President Obama already spoke about the Asian century, as
seen from the US perspective. This also means that Europe is no longer, so to say, at the
centre of world events."She adds: "The United States' focus on Europe is declining -- that will
be the case under any president."The answer? "We in Europe, and especially in Germany, need to
take on more responsibility."
Germany has vowed to meet the Nato target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence by the
start of the 2030s. Ms Merkel admits that for those alliance members which have already reached
the 2 per cent goal, "naturally this is not enough". But there's no denying Germany has made
substantial progress on the issue: its defence budget has increased by 40 per cent since
2015, which is "a huge step from Germany's perspective".
Ms Merkel insists the transatlantic relationship "remains crucial for me, particularly as
regards fundamental questions concerning values and interests in the world". Yet Europe should
also develop its own military capability. There may be regions outside Nato's primary focus
where "Europe must -- if necessary -- be prepared to get involved. I see Africa as one
example," she says.
Defence is hardly the sole bone of contention with the US. Trade is a constant irritation.
Berlin watched with alarm as the US and China descended into a bitter trade war in 2018: it
still fears becoming collateral damage.
"Can the European Union come under pressure between America and China? That can happen, but
we can also try to prevent it. "Germany has few illusions about China. German officials and
businesspeople are just as incensed as their US counterparts by China's theft of intellectual
property, its unfair investment practices, state-sponsored cyber-hacking and human rights
abuses in regions like Xinjiang.
Once seen as a strategic partner, China is increasingly viewed in Berlin as a systemic
rival. But Berlin has no intention of emulating the US policy of "decoupling" -- cutting its
diplomatic, commercial and financial ties with China. Instead, Ms Merkel has staunchly defended
Berlin's close relationship with Beijing. She says she would "advise against regarding China as
a threat simply because it is economically successful".
"As was the case in Germany, [China's] rise is largely based on hard work, creativity and
technical skills," she says. Of course there is a need to "ensure that trade relations are
fair". China's economic strength and geopolitical ambitions mean it is a rival to the US and
Europe. But the question is: "Do we in Germany and Europe want to dismantle all interconnected
global supply chains . . . because of this economic competition?"
She adds: "In my opinion, complete isolation from China cannot be the answer."Her plea for
dialogue and co-operation has set her on a collision course with some in her own party.
China hawks in her Christian Democratic Union share US mistrust of Huawei, the Chinese
telecoms equipment group, fearing it could be used by Beijing to conduct cyber espionage or
sabotage. Ms Merkel has pursued a more conciliatory line. Germany should tighten its security
requirements towards all telecoms providers and diversify suppliers "so that we never make
ourselves dependent on one firm" in 5G. But "I think it is wrong to simply exclude someone per
se," she says.
The rise of China has triggered concern over Germany's future competitiveness. And that
economic "angst" finds echoes in the febrile politics of Ms Merkel's fourth term. Her "grand
coalition" with the Social Democrats is wracked by squabbling. The populist Alternative for
Germany is now established in all 16 of the country's regional parliaments. A battle has broken
out for the post-Merkel succession, with a crop of CDU heavy-hitters auditioning for the top
job.
Many in the political elite worry about waning international influence in the final months
of the Merkel era.While she remains one of the country's most popular politicians, Germans are
asking what her legacy will be. For many of her predecessors, that question is easy to answer:
Konrad Adenauer anchored postwar Germany in the west; Willy Brandt ushered in detente with the
Soviet Union; Helmut Kohl was the architect of German reunification. So how will Ms Merkel be
remembered?
She brushes away the question. "I don't think about my role in history -- I do my job." But
what about critics who say the Merkel era was mere durchwurschteln -- muddling through? That
word, she says, in a rare flash of irritation, "isn't part of my vocabulary". Despite her
reputation for gradualism and caution, Ms Merkel will doubtless be remembered for two bold
moves that changed Germany -- ordering the closure of its nuclear power stations after the
Fukushima disaster of 2011, and keeping the country's borders open at the height of the 2015
refugee crisis. That decision was her most controversial, and there are some in Germany who
still won't forgive her for it. But officials say Germany survived the influx, and has
integrated the more than 1m migrants who arrived in 2015-16.
She prefers to single out less visible changes. Germany is much more engaged in the world:
just look, she says, at the Bundeswehr missions in Africa and Afghanistan. During the Kohl era,
even the idea of dispatching a ship to the Adriatic to observe the war in Yugoslavia was
controversial. She also mentions efforts to end the war in Ukraine, its role in the Iran
nuclear deal, its assumption of ever more "diplomatic, and increasingly also military
responsibility". "It may become more in future, but we are certainly on the right path," she
says.
The Merkel era has been defined by crisis but thanks to her stewardship most Germans have
rarely had it so good. The problem is the world expects even more of a powerful, prosperous
Germany and its next chancellor.Letter in response to this article:At last, I understand
Brexit's real purpose / From John Beadsmoore, Great Wilbraham, Cambs, UK
"... For starters, don't be surprised if his "fortification" of ISIS means Donald Trump can't pull out of Syria after all. Or maybe if ISIS attacks on Iraqi civilians/militias result in the Iraqi parliament revoking their request for the US to remove their troops from Iraqi soil. ..."
"... There's the possibility that ISIS will start a resurgence in Libya, meaning that NATO has to get in there and sort things out. Maybe some furious ISIS fighters will be the ones who assassinate Iranian generals in future. It's much less messy that way. ..."
For starters, don't be surprised if his "fortification" of ISIS means Donald Trump can't
pull out of Syria after all. Or maybe if ISIS attacks on Iraqi civilians/militias result in the Iraqi parliament revoking
their request for the US to remove their troops from Iraqi soil.
There's the possibility that ISIS will start a resurgence in Libya, meaning that NATO has to
get in there and sort things out. Maybe some furious ISIS fighters will be the ones who assassinate Iranian generals in
future. It's much less messy that way.
Or, hell, maybe we'll return to the hits of the 90s and early 2000s, and Islamic jihadists
will get back to work in Chechnya.
Whatever happens, ISIS are back baby. And that means that some way, somehow, Mr al-Salbi is
about to make the foreign policy goals of the United States much easier.
That's what Goldsteins are for.
harry law ,
.... The US have used Islamic state against both Syria and Iraq, [the enemy of my enemy is my
friend].
There can be no doubt that the US are going to use Islamic state to disrupt Iraq, just as
they had no qualms about watching [from satellites and spotter aircraft] Islamic state travel
100's of kilometres from Syria to Northern Iraq [Mosul] across the desert, whipping up tons
of dust in their Toyota jeeps to put pressure on the Iraqi government. Also as they watched
on with equanimity when the Islamic state transported thousands of tanker loads of oil from
Syria to Turkey, that is until the Russians bombed those convoys, the US must think everyone
is as stupid as they are. If the Iraqis don't drive the US out using all means including
violence, they deserve to be slaves.
"Sergey Lavrov earlier called the US-led coalition's refusal to combat al-Nusra
"absolutely unacceptable."
If that means Uncle Joe, then Trump may bloody well already uncork the champagne. Remember
that recent Iranian debacle of his, which is already starting being forgotten? That was the
*only* real chance for Democrats to look solid in the Senate when trying to impeach him.
The only way to make Republican senators look dishonest and partisan when defending him. An
unexpected and unprovoked electoral gift to them from Trump (a would-have-been-serious gift
- read Daniel Larison's articles as to how many American voters, no matter their partisan
leanings, are anti-war now). How did the DNC manage that gift? Exactly. By directly
bringing it to the trash bin without a moment of hesitation and keeping on desperately
clinging to the politically stillborn clownery around Ukraine which will allow the
Republican senators to laugh their Democratic colleagues out of the stage and seal Trump's
victory the very moment the said clownery is brought to the upper chamber of the
parliament. Now Democrats look like a poor feller in front of an insurmountable wall, who,
having witnessed a door which magically/quantumly appeared in that wall, screamed "To
battle!/Arriva!/Kovfefe!", slammed the said door shut, industriously broke the handle so
that it could never be opened again in the quantum dimension he exists and resumed his
attempts to - how to put it mildly? - shatter the reinforced concrete with his forehead.
So please spare me the righteous posturing. Be honest at least to yourself and admit
that America's mainstream parties are owned by the same people, hence the only thing you
choose is the ideological agenda on cultural issues you prefer. The battle between them
is as much of a battle between good and evil and of the rule of law against the
lawlessness as the one between Pol Pot and D'Aubuisson Arrieta.
I'm a former Trump voter who could vote for Warren or Sanders but not Biden. Trump has been
the biggest disappointment of my political life, and I'll never forgive him for the failures
on immigration, but Biden and bis family looks to be at least as personally sleazy and
corrupt as the Trumps, if not as outright sickening.
Well, I'm a non-Democrat leftist (except for conservative leanings on social issues and a
vehemently anti-war posture that is a minority view on both the left and right). I have voted
for third-party candidates for President most of my life (and I'm a septuagenarian). For
reasons of foreign policy and economics, I would probably vote for either Sanders or Warren,
at least if they don't get too bonkers on identity politics. But there is no way I would vote
for any of the other Democratic contenders, and there is no way I would vote for Trump.
For what it's worth, I think the whole frenzy to defeat Trump no matter what is overblown.
Except for the Twitter feed, I don't see how Trump has actually governed much differently
from any other contemporary Republican. The difference between Trump and, say Ted Cruz, or
Marco Rubio, is mostly style, not policy.
That last sentence is true. But it is style that really matters to many Democrats. Obama was
their ideal President almost entirely because of his style.
And Trump's style is what attracts his hard core supporters.
If that means Uncle Joe, then Trump may bloody well already uncork the champagne. Remember
that recent Iranian debacle of his, which is already starting being forgotten? That was the
*only* real chance for Democrats to look solid in the Senate when trying to impeach him. The
only way to make Republican senators look dishonest and partisan when defending him. An
unexpected and unprovoked electoral gift to them from Trump (a would-have-been-serious gift -
read Daniel Larison's articles as to how many American voters, no matter their partisan
leanings, are anti-war now). How did the DNC manage that gift? Exactly. By directly bringing
it to the trash bin without a moment of hesitation and keeping on desperately clinging to the
politically stillborn clownery around Ukraine which will allow the Republican senators to
laugh their Democratic colleagues out of the stage and seal Trump's victory the very moment
the said clownery is brought to the upper chamber of the parliament. Now Democrats look like
a poor feller in front of an insurmountable wall, who, having witnessed a door which
magically/quantumly appeared in that wall, screamed "To battle!/Arriva!/Kovfefe!", slammed
the said door shut, industriously broke the handle so that it could never be opened again in
the quantum dimension he exists and resumed his attempts to - how to put it mildly? - shatter
the reinforced concrete with his forehead.
The author asks an interesting question: what is the urgency to remove Turmp before the
election. Why notwait Novemebr and see if he is removed by voters?
One of the best articles I've seen on both sides of the current scene is Jim Kavanaugh's
"Impeachment: What
Lies Beneath?" Let us note that this essay was first published at the author's website,
The Polemicist, on Dec. 17, 2019.
In the first half of the essay, "The Raw," the author is discussing the remarkable
weakness of the impeachment case and articles; the second half of the essay, "The Cooked,"
begins with the following two paragraphs:
Which makes me wonder. The obviousness of this losing hand, and the fact that the most
politically-seasoned, can't-be-that-stupid Democrats seem determined to play it out, have
my paranoid political Spidey senses all atingle. What are the cards they're not showing?
What lies beneath the thin ice of these Articles of Impeachment?
If the apparent agenda makes no sense, look for the hidden. Something that better
explains why Pelosi, et. al. find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why
they think they can succeed in doing that.
There is one thing that I can think of that drives such frantic urgency: War. That would
also explain why Trump's "national security" problem -- embedded in the focus on Ukraine
arms shipments, Russian aggression, etc. -- is the real issue, the whistle to Republican
war dogs.
But if so, the Ukro-Russian motif is itself a screen for another "national security"/war
issue that cannot be stated explicitly. There's no urgency about aggression towards Russia.
There is for Iran.
These paragraphs mirror the structure of the essay altogether: beginning with impeachment
and ending with Iran. In the next paragraph we see Kavanaugh's prognosis, his proposal for
how things might unfold:
So here's my entirely speculative tea-leaf reading: If there's a hidden agenda behind
the urgency to remove Trump, one that might actually garner the votes of Republican
Senators, it is to replace him with a president who will be a more reliable and effective
leader for a military attack on Iran that Israel wants to initiate before next November.
Spring is the cruelest season for launching wars."
This was striking to read on December 17 and even more striking to reflect upon as of
Friday, January 3. Kavanaugh's arguments make a lot of sense, and perhaps it will turn out
that "April is the cruelest month" (as he says at the end of the essay) -- but don't
we have to consider that perhaps Trump has once again outplayed both Democrats and
Republicans, and, even more, the Deep State?
As Trump said in announcing the drone strike that killed Gen. Soleimani, "We took
action last night to stop a war; we did not take action to start a war."
Attacks in/on other countries by the U.S. will not receive praise from me, not any more
than did the U.S.-abetted coup in Bolivia. I will say, though, that I sure wish the party of
the King of Drones, Barack Obama (who openly bragged about being "very good at killing
people") would shut the hell up.
That's not going to happen, of course -- the only thing here that will restrain them is
the role of Israel in this.
Again, there's no mystery to any of this -- but what is a mystery to me is why anybody
listens to the Democrats on this or any other issue.
Undoubtedly there are elements to this situation I don't see or understand -- but what we
all have as a helpful guide is the fact that whatever the Democratic Party leadership says
here, and whatever the conventional Left narrative presents on this situation, absolutely
cannot be trusted.
But the article was flimsy even by Russiagate standards, and so certain questions inevitably
arise. What was it really about? Who's behind it? Who's the real target?
Here's a quick answer. It was about boosting Joe Biden, and its real target was his chief
rival, Bernie Sanders. And poor, inept Bernie walked straight into the trap.
The article was flimsy because rather than saying straight out that Russian intelligence
hacked Burisma, the company notorious for hiring Biden's son, Hunter, for $50,000 a month job,
reporters Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg had to rely on unnamed "security experts" to
say it for them. While suggesting that the hackers were looking for dirt, they didn't quite say
that as well. Instead, they admitted that "it is not yet clear what the hackers found, or
precisely what they were searching for."
So we have no idea what they were up to, if anything at all. But the Times then quoted
"experts" to the effect that "the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians
could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens – the same kind of
information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the
Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment." Since Trump and
the Russians are seeking the same information, they must be in cahoots, which is what Democrats
have been saying from the moment Trump took office. Given the lack of evidence, this was
meaningless as well.
But then came the kicker: two full paragraphs in which a Biden campaign spokesman was
permitted to expound on the notion that the Russians hacked Burisma because Biden is the
candidate that they and Trump fear the most.
"Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan,
international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can't beat the vice
president," the spokesman, Andrew Bates, said. "Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe
Biden as a threat. Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign
interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our
elections."
If Biden is the number-one threat, then Sanders is not, presumably because the Times sees
him as soft on Moscow. If so, it means that he could be in for the same neo-McCarthyism that
antiwar candidate Tulsi Gabbard encountered last October when Hillary Clinton blasted her as
"the favorite of the Russians." Gabbard had the good sense to
blast her right back.
"Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know
– it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and
war machine ."
If only Sanders did the same. But instead he put out a statement filled with the usual
anti-Russian clichés:
"The 2020 election is likely to be the most consequential election in modern American
history, and I am alarmed by new reports that Russia recently hacked into the Ukrainian gas
company at the center of the impeachment trial, as well as Russia's plans to once again meddle
in our elections and in our democracy. After our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including with thousands of paid ads on Facebook, the
New York Times now reports that Russia likely represents the biggest threat of election meddle
in 2020, including through disinformation campaigns, promoting hatred, hacking into voting
systems, and by exploiting the political divisions sewn [sic] by Donald Trump ."
And so on for another 250 words. Not only did the statement put him in bed with the
intelligence agencies, but it makes him party to the big lie that the Kremlin was responsible
for putting Trump over the top in 2016.
Let's get one thing straight. Yes, Russian intelligence may have hacked the Democratic
National Committee. But cybersecurity was so lax that others may have been rummaging about as
well. (CrowdStrike, the company called in to investigate the hack, says it found not one but
two cyber-intruders.) Notwithstanding the Mueller report, all the available evidence
indicates
that Russia did not then pass along thousands of DNC emails that Wikileaks published in July
2016. (Julian Assange's statement six months later that "our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party" remains uncontroverted.) Similarly,
there's no evidence that the Kremlin had anything to do with the $45,000 worth of Facebook ads
purchased by a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency – Robert
Mueller's 2018 indictment of the IRA was completely silent
on the subject of a Kremlin connection – and no evidence that the ads, which were
politically all over the map, had a remotely significant impact on the 2016 election.
All the rest is a classic CIA disinformation campaign aimed at drumming up anti-Russian
hysteria and delegitimizing anyone who fails to go along. And now Bernie Sanders is trying to
cover his derrière by hopping on board.
It won't work. Sanders will find himself having to take one loyalty oath after another as
the anti-Russia campaign flares anew. But it will never be enough, and he'll only wind up
looking tired and weak. Voters will opt for the supposedly more formidable Biden, who will end
up as a bug splat on the windshield of Donald Trump's speeding election campaign. With
impeachment no longer an issue, he'll be free to behave as dictatorially as he wishes as he
settles into his second term.
After inveighing against billionaire's wars, he'll find himself ensnared by the same
billionaire war machine. The trouble with Sanders is that he thinks he can win by playing by
the rules. But he can't because the rules are stacked against him. He'd know that if his
outlook was more radical. His problem is not that he's too much of a socialist. Rather, it's
that he's not enough.
American interests are to protect oil companies, and fight the inevtible douche (british
definition) American's will feel once the dollar is deflated. In a lesser way, wars and
interventions are indeed to protect americans – from a massive, sudden, econimic
depression of the likes the world has never seen. China and the rest of the world no American
empire is going to retract. I only hope we have a sensible leader who can parlay Ameria's
role in the world to become a partner in the BRI – ion some way.
The Asia Pivot was never destined to be anything but bluster. Asia is lost, the Asian
nations will satellite around China. Southeast Asia is even more lost, Cambodia mioght as
well fly the Chinese flag, Thailand will pretend, as it always has, to never have been
colonized. Well, Thailand was/is a dog of a nation that's laid down on its back for every
nation advancing on it's border.
Myanmar just signed on to the BRI and has given China its derired dams. It's already full
of Chinese. The only thing holding China back in Myanmar is the amount of money it has to
give spoon to the military, generals, cronies,etc. China already owns almost all of Manadaly
and thousands of square milies surrounding Mandalay. It has gas and oil fields in a warm
water where those pesky Bengali Jihadis once tried to dominate.
https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-china-sign-dozens-deals-bri-projects-cooperation-xis-visit.html
So, it's no wonder Iraq is the last stop of the retreat from the Middle East. The Chinese
are moving forward with only the Saudis standing in the way. And who the hell really likes
the House of Saud? They're doomed soon, and good riddence. The Iraqis want American out, and
one day American will leave.
In accordance with the agreement closed between the Tunisian and Turkish presidents,
Kaïs Saïed and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, on Christmas Day, the migration of
jihadists from Syria via Tunisia to Libya has begun. [ 1 ]
The pendulum has swung back, when considering that the Free Syrian Army was created by the
jihadists of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), who had joined the ranks of Al-Qaeda in
Iraq, then served as NATO's footsoldiers in Libya. [ 2 ]
According to Middle East Eye , the Sultan Murad Division, the Suqour al-Sham Brigades
(Hawks of the Levant) and especially the Faylaq al-Sham (Legion of the Levant) (photo) are
already on the move. [ 3 ] The SOHR, a British association
linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, has confirmed the arrival in Tripoli of the first 300
combatants.
The Sultan Murad division is made up of Syrian Turkmen. The Hawks of the Levant comprise
numerous French fighters and the Legion of the Levant is an imposing army of at least 4,000
men. The latter group is directly affiliated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
Turkey has urged several other jihadist groups to follow suit and to flee ahead of the
liberation of the Idlib governorate by the Syrian Arab Army.
The jihadists sent to Libya are expected to balance out the forces present in the country by
supporting the government installed by the UN, while elements of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces
and the Russian mercenaries have lined up with the Bengazi-based government.
In 22 December 2019, Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Conservative lawyer Nikos Dendias,
travelled to Benghazi to meet the ministers designated by the Tobruk House of Representatives
and their military leader, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. He then moved on to Cairo and
Cyprus.
Simultaneously, during a ceremony at the Gölcük Naval shipyard, President Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan announced the decision to expedite Turkey's submarine construction program.
The 6 New Type 214 submarines which Turkey is building with German Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft
(HDW) should be near completion.
Under the agreement signed with the Government of National Accord (GNA) headed by Fayez
Al-Sarraj, in addition to military ports in occupied Cyprus, Turkey could have access to a home
port in Libya, from where it could extend its influence over the entire eastern
Mediterranean.
After the delivery of Turkish military equipment to Tripoli flown in by a civilian Boeing
747-412, Field Marshal Haftar proclaimed that he would not hesitate to shoot down any civilian
aircraft carrying weapons for the GNA.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has entered into a military alliance with the
Libyan "government of national accord" (GNA), chaired by Fayez Al-Sarraj, based in Tripoli and
backed by the United Nations. Erdoğan has already arranged for the delivery of armored
vehicles and drones, but has yet to deploy regular troops.
In Ankara, the Grand National Assembly is expected imminently to authorize the Turkish army
to send regular soldiers to Libya.
At the same time, however, the Turkish army is keeping out of Idlib (Syria) where the
jihadists are under attack by the Syrian Arab army, in coordination with the Russian air force,
and where two Turkish observation posts have been hemmed in by the Syrian Arab army. Tens of
thousands of jihadists have been moving into Turkey.
On 25 December 2019, President Erdoğan paid a spur-of-the-moment visit to Tunisia. He
was notably flanked by Hakan Fidan, the head of Turkey's national intelligence (Millî
İstihbarat Teşkilatı), as well as by his Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministers.
The delegation was received by Tunisia's President Kaïs Saïed, a jurist, who is
supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. He gave his Turkish counterpart the green light to use the
airport and the port of Djerba for the mass transfer of jihadists to Tripoli and Misrata.
Tom Luongo, who frequently cites b, has coined a new word for Trump's and his minions
tactics. Tom asks:
Does Gangsternomics Meet its End in the Iraqi Desert?
In the aftermath of the killing of Iranian IRGC General Qassem Soleimani a lot of questions
hung in the air. The big one was, in my mind, "Why now?"
There are a lot of angles to answer that question. Many of them were supplied by
caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi who tried to let the world know through
official (and unofficial) channels of the extent of the pressure he was under by the
U.S.
In short, President Trump was engaged in months of what can best be described as
gangsternomics in directing the course of Iraq's future economic and political
development.[/]
Iraq's importance goes much farther than just protecting the petrodollar to the U.S.
It is the fulcrum now on which the entire U.S. defense against Eurasian integration rests.
The entire region is slipping out of the grasp of the U.S.
And this started with Russia moving into Syria in 2015 successfully. We are downstream
of this as it has blown open the playbook and revealed it for how ugly it is.
Trump's crude gangster tactics in Iraq, Venezuela, Bolivia and to a lesser extent in
Syria cannot be hidden behind the false veil of moral preening and virtue signaling about
bringing democracy to these benighted places.[/]
What began in Syria with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and China standing up together and
saying, "No," continues today in Iraq. To this point Iran has been the major actor.
Tomorrow it will be Russia, China and India.
And that is what is ultimately at stake here, the ability of the U.S. to employ
gangsternomics in the Middle East and make it stick.[.]
By the time Trump is done threatening people over S-400's and pipelines the entire world
will be happy to trade in yuan and/or rubles rather than dollars.[.]
when he tweeted that 'it
doesn't really matter' if there was such a threat or not.
In a letter to the New York Times the now 100 years old chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg
trials, Benjamin B. Ferencz, warned of the larger effects of such deeds when he
writes :
The administration recently announced that, on orders of the president, the United
States had "taken out" (which really means "murdered") an important military leader of
a country with which we were not at war. As a Harvard Law School graduate who has
written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of
national and international law.
The public is entitled to know the truth. The United Nations Charter, the
International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are
all being bypassed. In this cyberspace world, young people everywhere are in mortal
danger unless we change the hearts and minds of those who seem to prefer war to
law.
The killing of a Soleimani will also only have a short term effect when it comes to
general deterrence. It was a onetime shot to which others will react. Groups and people
who work against 'U.S. interests' will now do so less publicly. Countries will seek
asymmetric advantages to prevent such U.S. action against themselves. By committing the
crime the U.S. and Trump made the global situation for themselves more complicated.
It is interesting that the commentary closes with a letter by Benjamin Ferencz, perhaps
the last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. As he indicates, the assassination is a war
crime, and, in my view, even the threat of such an assassination is a serious breach of
international law. Regimes following such a policy have gone rogue, and cabinet ministers
making such a pronouncement that the assassination was carried out as a deterrent are, in
effect, confessing to war crimes. In future the reach of the offending regime may be much
less than it is now, and, if that occurs, the rogue minister better be careful if he
travels outside of his home country.
Posted by: exiled off mainstree | Jan 18 2020 20:00 utc |
5
"By committing the crime the U.S. and Trump made the global situation for themselves more
complicate."
USA is not exactly the sole economic superpower, but as long as the allies, EU, NATO,
major allies in Asia and Latin America, behave like poodles, USA pretty much controls
what is "normal". After Obama campaigns of murder by drone, now Trump raises it to a
higher level, and Europe, the most critical link in the web of alliances, applauds (UK)
or accepts and cooperates. That can be a useful clarification for US establishment.
So the bottom line is that while it is hard to show constructive goals achieved by
raising murder policies to a more brazen level, nothing changes for the worse. Allies
tolerate irrationality, cruelty etc. and to some extend, join the fun.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 18 2020 20:06 utc |
8
Pompeo: "In all cases, we have to do this."
In all cases they have to murder? That is psycho killer talk. Notice how comfortable
the American public is with that.
America disconnected from reality years ago. I rather doubt they could even find their
way back if they were to somehow return to their senses.
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 18 2020 20:07 utc |
9
Deterrence and decapitation strikes ...
Idle speculation on my part, but I am not alone in wondering if the Soleimani
assassination accelerated Putin's restructuring agenda. (I'm not suggesting it was
generated or even influenced in substance by the strike, just that the timing may have
been.) Given the power of the President in Russia, as the CIA itself very well
understands, there is perhaps no more tempting target for an overt military assassination
strike than President Putin.
Of course, deterrence of rational actors is precisely what would prevent this, but I
imagine Russian strategic thinkers have wondered whether or for how long the US remains a
rational actor. Moreover, this would be the sort of thing that a fanatical faction could
pull off. In some Strangelovean bunker somewhere, there may be those who would actually
welcome a last gasp of large-scale warfare before the Eurasian Heartland is lost and the
Petrodollar-fueled global finance empire, nominally sheltered in the US, dies away.
Creative destruction ... a last chance to shuffle the cards, and perhaps reset a
losing game to zero.
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Jan 18 2020 20:20 utc |
13
Maybe I stupidly posted this in the wrong thread?
Trump is simply a third-rate Godfather type gangster, with a touch of the charm and a
lot of the baggage. I think his murder of General Qassem Soleimani was not something he
would have done if he had any choice. It was a very stupid move, and Trump is just not
that stupid. I really think this was demanded by the 'churnitalists'. These churnitalists
are probably the psychos of the predatory arm of the CIA, and their billionaire
allies.
See, it all works like this:
These churnitalists (who supposedly provide us with 'protection', or 'security') are
the real rulers (because everybody who defies them ends up dead). Now just ask your self:
How does rulership actually really work? It's really kind of simple. The only actual way
to establish rulership over other people is to prove, again and again, that you can force
them to do stupid things, for absolutely no reason. This is called 'people-churning', and
all you have to do is just keep churning out low-class 'history' by constantly forcing
the weaker ones to do stupid things. Again and again. This happens constantly in a
churnitalist gangster society. Even in schools and legislatures, and so on. Haven't you
noticed it yet?
The U.S. has occasionally exerted pressure on democratic allies, but never treated them like
servile pawns. Until now. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (C) and his wife Susan (R) wait to
board a helicopter to the US embassy at the terminal at Baghdad International Airport on
January 9, 2019.(ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)
January 17, 2020
|
12:01 am
Ted
Galen Carpenter A policy statement that the State Department issued on January 10 asserts that "America is a
force for good in the Middle East." It adds, "We want to be a friend and partner to a
sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq." Yet the Trump administration's recent conduct toward
Iraq indicates a very different (and much uglier) policy. Washington is behaving like an
impatient, imperial power that has concluded that an obstreperous colony requires a dose of
corrective discipline.
Washington's
late December airstrikes on Iraqi militia targets, in retaliation for the killing of an
American civilian contractor working at a base in northern Iraq, greatly provoked the Iraqi
government and population. Massive anti-American demonstrations erupted in several cities, and
an assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad forced diplomats to take refuge in a special "
safe room ."
The drone strike on Iranian General Qassem Soleimani outside Baghdad a few days later was an
even more brazen violation of Iraq's sovereignty. Carrying out the assassination on Iraqi
territory when Soleimani was there at the invitation of Prime Minister Adel Abdull Mahdi to
discuss
a new peace feeler from Saudi Arabia was especially clumsy and arrogant. It created
suspicions that the United States was deliberately seeking to maintain turmoil in the Middle
East to justify its continued military presence there. The killing of Soleimani (as well as two
influential Iraqi militia leaders) led Iraq's government to pass a resolution calling on Mahdi
to expel U.S. forces stationed in the country, and he promptly began to prepare legislation
to implement that goal.
Trump's initial reaction to the prospect that Baghdad might order U.S. troops to leave was
akin to a foreign policy temper tantrum. He threatened America's democratic ally with harsh economic
sanctions if it dared to take that step. As Trump put it, "we will charge them sanctions
like they've never seen before, ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."
Over the following days, it became apparent that the sanctions threat was not just a
spontaneous, intemperate outburst on the part of President Trump. Compelling Iraq to continue
hosting U.S. forces was official administration policy. Senior officials from the Treasury
Department and other agencies began
drafting specific sanctions that could be imposed. Washington explicitly warned the Iraqi
government that it
could lose access to its account held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Such a
freeze would amount to financial strangulation of the country's already fragile economy.
U.S. arrogance towards Baghdad seems almost boundless. When Mahdi asked the administration
to "
prepare a mechanism " for the exit of American forces and commence negotiations towards
that transition, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flatly
refused . Indeed, the State Department's January 10 statement made it clear that there
would be no such discussions: "At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to
discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership -- not to discuss troop
withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East."
Throughout the Cold War, U.S. leaders proudly proclaimed that NATO and other American-led
alliances were voluntary associations of free nations. Conversely, the Warsaw Pact alliance of
Eastern European countries formed in response to NATO was a blatantly imperial enterprise of
puppet regimes under the Kremlin's total domination. Moscow's brutal suppression of even modest
political deviations within its satellite empire helped confirm the difference. Soviet tanks
rolled into East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to crush reform
factions and solidify a Soviet military occupation. Even when the USSR did not resort to such
heavy-handed measures, it was clear that the "allies" were on a very short leash.
Although the United States has occasionally exerted pressure on its allies when they've
opposed its objectives, it has not attempted to treat democratic partners as servile pawns.
That is why the Trump administration's current behavior towards Iraq is so troubling and
exhibits such unprecedented levels of crudeness. America is in danger of becoming the
geopolitical equivalent of a middle school bully.
If Washington refuses to withdraw its forces from Iraq, defying the Baghdad government's
calls to leave, those troops will no longer be guests or allies. They would constitute a
hostile army of occupation, however elaborate the rhetorical facade.
At that point, America would no longer be a moral "force for good" in the Middle East or
anywhere else. The United States would be behaving as an amoral imperial power imposing its
authority on weaker democratic countries that dare adopt measures contrary to Washington's
policy preferences. America might not yet have replaced the Soviet Union as (in Ronald Reagan's
words) the "evil empire," but it will be disturbingly far along the path to that status.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato
Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative , is the author of 12
books and more than 850 articles on international affairs.
"America is in danger of becoming the geopolitical equivalent of a middle school bully"?
Its not a mere prospect, its history. The US has been a bully for many years, at least
for the last 20 years, if not more.
It is 100% irrelevant what American think of their "moral standing" in the world. In
terms of foreign policy, it only matter what OTHER countries think, right or wrong. The
rest of the world already think the US govt is a bully. The fact that Trump, became
president is simply the icing on the big reveal cake. Yes, foreign powers helped Trump win
the election, but that was simply an effect on the margin. The majority of Trump supporters
do not need Russian interference to be swayed by him. Trump action embodies that which his
supports wanted for many many years.
What Trump has done is give foreign allies something tangible, indisputable proof to
point to, every time the US come knocking on their door ask for help on "this", "that" and
the "other thing". From now on, they will make sure the get favorable terms in writing,
rather than verbal agreements.
Upvoted, even though you repeat the BS allegations of Russian "interference". Social media
traffic mining by a privately-owned clickbait operation and an email leak to Wikileaks from
the DNC by a disgruntled insider is not "Russian interference". A handful of FB ads taken
out both before and after the elections, and slamming BOTH trump and Shrillary is likewise
evidence of nothing.
"Russiagate" is a hoax, a monumental LIE foisted onto the US public by a vengeful
Democrat party, their political-appointees within government agencies, the corporate media
and the Deep State reptiles who need eternal hostility to Russia to justify the $1T per
annum gravy train that so enriches them.
Russiagate and other forms of Anti-Russian yapping are but an effort for a risingly
dysfunctional society to blame outsiders for failure and dysfunction.
In 2019, Parnas served as a translator for a legal case involving Dmytro Firtash , one of Ukraine's
wealthiest oligarchs with self-admitted mob connections, [12] who is fighting
extradition to the U.S. to face bribery charges. Firtash has lived in Vienna for five
years. "Mr. Parnas was retained by DiGenova & Toensing , LLP as an interpreter in
order to communicate with their client Mr. Firtash, who does not speak English," the
Washington-based law firm said in a statement. [13] However, recordings
of Parnas speaking Ukrainian and Russian evidence that he has not retained total fluency in
these two languages since coming to the United States. A Swiss lawyer for Firtash loaned $1
million to Parnas's wife in September 2019, according to prosecutors. [14]
In addition to working on joint business and political efforts, Parnas and Fruman have
been involved in Jewish charities and causes in the U.S., Ukraine and Israel.
[15]
Fruman and Parnas are on the board of a Ukrainian-Jewish charity, "Friends of Anatevka",
founded by Ukrainian rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman , to provide a
refuge for Jews
affected by the
Russian military intervention in Ukraine . [16] Parnas and Fruman
visited Israel in the summer of 2018 as a part of a delegation, led by former Arkansas
Governor Mike
Huckabee and joined by Anthony Scaramucci , of "right-wing
Jewish and evangelical supporters of Trump." While there, the group met with various
leaders and personalities including the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David M. Friedman , Benjamin Netanyahu 's
son Yair
Netanyahu , as well as billionaire Simon Falic, one of Netanyahu's most generous
donors. [17] Huckabee joined the
two once again in March 2019 when they were awarded with the "Chovevei Zion" (Lovers of
Zion) awards at a gala for the National Council of Young
Israel , an event focused on supporting President Trump and Israeli West Bank
settlements . Rudy Giuliani and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy
were in attendance as well. While in Israel Parnas and Fruman also met with oligarch
Ihor
Kolomoyskyi , a wealthy Ukrainian under investigation by the Department of Justice for
money laundering. [15]
About the impeachment of President Donald Trump she engineered with her Democratic majority, Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday: "It's
not personal. It's not political. It's not partisan. It's patriotic."
Seriously, Madam Speaker? Not political? Not partisan?
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles
across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?
The truth: The impeachment of Donald Trump is the fruit of a malicious prosecution whose roots go back to the 2016 election, in
the aftermath of which stunned liberals and Democrats began to plot the removal of the new president.
This coup has been in the works for three years.
First came the crazed charges of Trump's criminal collusion with Vladimir Putin to hack the emails of the DNC and the Clinton
campaign and funnel them to WikiLeaks.
For two years, we heard the cries of "Treason!" from Pelosi's caucus. And despite the Mueller investigation's exoneration of Trump
of all charges of conspiracy with Russia, we still hear the echoes:
Trump is Putin's poodle. Trump is an asset of the Kremlin.
All we want, and what the American people deserve, is a "fair trial," Democrats and their media collaborators now insist. But
can a fair trial proceed from a manifestly deficient and malicious prosecution?
Consider. In this impeachment, we are told, the House serves as the grand jury, and Adam Schiff's Intelligence Committee and Jerry
Nadler's Judiciary Committee serve as the investigators and prosecutors.
But the articles of impeachment on which the Judiciary Committee and the House voted do not contain a single crime required by
the Constitution for impeachment and removal. There is no charge of treason, no charge of bribery or "other high crimes and misdemeanors."
So weak is the case for impeachment that the elite in this city is demanding that the Senate do the work the House failed to do
.
The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce, to make the case for impeachment more persuasive
than it is now.
Not our job, rightly answers Mitch McConnell.
The Senate is supposed to be an "impartial jury."
But while there is a debate over whether Republicans will vote to call witnesses, there is no debate on how the Senate Democrats
intend to vote -- 100% for removal of a president they fear they may not be able to defeat.
Consider Trump's alleged offense: pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter
Biden.
Assume Zelenskiy, without prodding, sent to the U.S., as a friendly act to ingratiate himself with Trump, the Burisma file on
Hunter Biden.
Would that have been a crime?
Why is it then a crime if Trump asked for the file?
The military aid Trump held up for 10 weeks -- lethal aid Barack Obama denied to Kyiv -- was sent. And Zelenskiy never held the
press conference requested, never investigated Burisma, never sent the Biden file.
There is a reason why no crime was charged in the impeachment of Donald Trump. There was no crime committed.
Not political, said Pelosi. Why then did she hold up sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a month, after she
said it was so urgent that Trump be impeached that Schiff and Nadler could not wait for their subpoenas to be ruled upon by the Supreme
Court?
Pelosi is demanding that the Senate get the documents, subpoena and hear the witnesses, and do the investigative work Schiff and
Nadler failed to do.
Does that not constitute an admission that a convincing case was not made? Are not the articles voted by the House inherently
deficient if the Senate has to have more evidence than the House prosecutors could produce to convict the president of "abuse of
power"?
Can we really have a fair trial in the Senate, when half of the jury, the Democratic caucus, is as reliably expected to vote to
remove the president as Republicans are to acquit him? What kind of fair trial is it when we can predict the final vote before the
court hears the evidence?
It is ridiculous to deny that this impeachment is partisan, political and personal. It reeks of politics, partisanship and Trump-hatred.
As for patriotic, that depends on where you stand -- or sit.
But the forum to be entrusted with the decision of "should Trump go?" is not a deeply polarized Senate, but with those the Founding
Fathers entrusted with such decisions -- the American people.
In most U.S. courts, a prosecution case this inadequate, with prosecutors asking the court itself to get more documents and call
more witnesses, and so visibly contaminated with malice toward the accused, would be dismissed outright.
Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, and then call for a vote to dismiss, and treat this indictment
with the contempt it so richly deserves.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever.
I want to know all the dirt. I want the Dems to be able to call their witnesses, and I want Trump's team to call their witnesses.
And I want cross examinations. Let's have a real trial so the American people can learn what has been going on. To sweep it all
under the carpet by having Mitch McConnell move for dismissal is to suppress the truth. What is wrong with Pat Buchanan? I always
thought Buchanan was a truth seeker and a truth teller. So very disappointed in him.
Fools and charlatans should not be encouraged. This faux "impeachment" is simply an exercise in pre-election mischief-making by
a Democrat party that simply hopes to damage Trump in the eyes of the voters.
So this is your argument: The Bidens were corrupt so Trump gets a pass on violating the law AS FOUND BY THE NONPARTISAN GAO! Yup,
sounds reasonable to me. MAGA
Government agencies are only as "non-partisan" as the political appointees tasked to run them.
No-one cared when Creepy joe Biden did it openly, but its a crime because some choose to believe that Trump did the same? LOL!!!
No sorry, that won't wash.
Juts because Biden is seeking to be president that doesn't mean he gets some kind of immunity from investigation for corrupt
activities in foreign nations.
If you think that a Dem-funded dodgy dossier on Trump is sufficient to initiate an FBI probe on trump when he is the Repubs
nominee, how can you possibly think that Biden is untouchable given his public admission of squeezing the Ukro gov using foreign
aid as leverage?????
Hilarious. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
What pre-election "Trump efforts in Ukraine"? I think you have an inability to follow time-lines.
Manafort was involved in corrupt dealing with shady Oligarchs, but that was before he worked for Trump, and the Bad Orange
Man wasn't in the slightest bit involved.
I still find it hilarious that the libs think Trump committed a crime in his conversation with Zelensky, but its OK for Creepy
Joe (as Veep) to blackmail Poroshenkos regime to get rid of the prosecutor sniffing around Burisa Holdings and thereby threatening
his sons get-rich-quick scheme (and then BRAGGING about it on camera). Un-freakin-believable... :-D
Why won't the Dems and leftwing media leave him alone then? Rep. Al Green (D-Tx) let that cat out of the bag when he told us that
they have to impeach him otherwise he's going to get re-elected. The impeachment gambit is no more complicated than that.
The Left can't stand Trump because of his Supreme Court nominations, his pulling out of the Climate Accord, and his pro-life positions.
That's why they want him stopped and removed from office. That being said, Trump is his own worst enemy because he is so full
of himself that he is incapable of behaving in an adult and judicious way.
Absolutely true. 100% But it doesn't change the fact that Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine into announcing an investigation of
the Bidens by withholding Congressionally mandated aid.
So, KNOWING the Dems were out to get him, he still does that, and is stupid enough to get caught red handed. Your great leader
picks such "winners." Rudy, Lev, and the gang did him right.
If Obama did it, a GOP House and Senate would have run him out of town in a week.
Like, I said, Trump is his own worst enemy. And a lot of Republicans are hypocrites. If Obama behaved as Trump has they'd be all
over him with criticism.
If we could design our own president..he'd be perfect. For us that is. A president is there to do a job. It's laid out
in the Constitution. The job desription says nothing about personality type.
Would I like him to say some things differently, sure. Sometimes I cringe. But nothing that he says affects us negatively (unless
it's in an emotional or psychological way). Your life, family, your career, your bank accounts, are not hurt by DJTs tweets or
sayings or interactions with anyone else in Washington.
So if that's the price to pay to have a leader who works to keep his promises it's a small price, and Americans ought to have
the grace and fortitude to handle the daily news without melting down emotionally or psychologically. A good spirit and a joyful
outlook are good for your soul.
A quote: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their
senses slowly, one by one."
Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
If that was the case, just not leave him to hang himself. Instead the corrupt libs indulge in big lies and sedition. The witch
hunt is clear and obvious, and it will stiffen Trumps sails as he heads into the 2020 showdown.
What happens to Mr. Trump in the long run is not our business. He's the POTUS. Anything beyond both the scope of and the time
of his presidency is an obsession with his person. Better to leave what's between him and his country out of any ideas of what's
between him and God.
Well spoken Mary. I find it ironic that the American Conservative would publish a "hit piece" about a supposed "hit job." I come
to the American Conservative for thoughtful, insightful ideas, not this. When the president grants himself "absolute immunity,"
which I would expect Pat Buchanan and American Conservative writers and readers to be outrages at, and I read a piece like this,
I wonder how Pat and company can editorialize and comment at a level well below the dignity of this publication?
I think this statement is closer to the truth of the matter:
"I think the votes have been decided. As much as anybody will be pretending to be judicious about this, I don't think that
there's one senator who hasn't decided how they're going to vote... I think if you're pretty much no longer interested in running
for office, or no longer interested in getting Republican votes, you might vote to impeach the president... When it comes to whether
or not you're going to impeach a president of your own party, particularly over a policy difference or whether or not he has lack
of decorum or whatever, I think that's something that a lot of voters will not excuse."
Rand Paul, Regarding the Impeachment Trial, January 16, 2020
Absolutely agree. And those in the GOP who close their eyes and ears to Trump's attempted blackmail/bribery will answer to the
electorate. That's why we need to get this trial going and get it over. Sure would be nice to hear what all the president's men
say about it, but that would only provide the first-hand evidence further proving Trump's guilt.
So there's no way they'll have witnesses. They'll try to blame the Dems for not letting Trump delay the whole thing in Court
and for refusing to have Hunter and Joe testify, even though that is a sideshow to the attempted blackmail/bribery. This is so
obviously a bunch of bull. If the Senate really wanted to hear from Joe and Hunter, they could subpoena them right now, today
into a committee hearing on their supposed Ukraine corruption. They haven't, so we know its just a bunch of smoke. The only question
is how many voters in the middle are going to let them get away with it.
Witnesses to say what? The same sort of hearsay and opinion that dominated the House hearings?
Errr... NO. The case will be judged on what the Dems have submitted in their articles of impeachment. They don't get to turn
this into a sustained lynch attempt or a never-ending talk-show for liberals and their minions who hate Trump and just want to
be heard.
Buchanan was a longtime aide to Richard Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal Nixon. The
people who accept this line of argument contend, in effect, that the purpose of the American Revolution and the US Constitution
was to replace a hereditary monarchy with an elected one.
I want all the dirt aired as well, but the SENATE is not the proper venue. These traitors need to be indicted, tried, probably
convicted, and sent to Gitmo. I hope McConnell shuts this down good and proper.
So how are we to know who the traitors are if there are no witnesses and cross examinations in the Senate? Are you expecting the
justice department to come down with a bunch of indictments?
Mr. Buchanan has a deep understanding of these matters on both an academic level and from personal experience. It's unfortunate,
but the only conclusion to draw is that the numerous falsehoods in this article are not mistakes, but deliberate attempts to deceive
the reader.
Whatever one's opinion on the behavior of Trump, the Democratic House or the Republican Senate, we should, at a bare minimum,
respect the truth.
1) Impeachment is not a criminal trail. It does not require an underlying crime to be committed, and the rules for impeachment
hearings are not the same as those for criminal or civil trails. Furthermore, the GAO has stated that what Trump is accused of
is indeed a crime.
2) The Mueller report was not an "exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia." The report literally said
that it was not and Mueller testified to Congress that it was not an exoneration.
3) The claim that "The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce" is absurd. it was the
White House that failed to produce to documents that the House subpoenas demanded. Whether you believe there should be witnesses
(or a trail at all) in the Senate. Implying that House Democrats is somehow concealing these documents is a lazy lie.
I must put aside Mr. Buchanan's comments regarding what the various senators are "really thinking" because I lack the physic
mind-reading abilities that he seems to possess.
However, whatever our opinion on the impeachment and the events that led up to it, can we please stop with the bald-faced lies?
If the Senate decides to dismiss, so be it, but if they publicly swear to God and country that they "will do impartial justice
according to the constitution and laws: so help you God?" then we should do our best to ensure they act that way.
"The Mueller report was not an "exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia." The report literally said that
it was not and Mueller testified to Congress that it was not an exoneration."
Total rubbish. A lack of evidence IS exoneration. Without evidence, all there is left is a bunch of allegations without proof.
Mueller was given the job to hang trump but he couldn't prove the lie to be fact. He won't admit it so he indulges in innuendo
to give a little complimentary red meat to his team mates.
This "impeachment" is a disgrace, nothing more than a corrupt exercise in partisan party politics. No high crimes. No high
misdemeanors. Nothing but a steaming pile of hearsay, allegations, bias and opinions. Certainly nothing that should ever justify
the removal of a legal and constitutionally elected POTUS.
"Disgrace". Trump has hypnotized his followers to repeat his 5 favorite words mindlessly... in this case it must be the word Trumps
mother kept using to admonish him, it's one of his favorite.
Yes, it was a lack of evidence. The purpose of a special prosecutor is to prosecute. When they have the evidence then they bring
an indictment. If this is not possible for the US President, there would be no purpose for an investigation of a President. And
when a prosecutor fails to bring an indictment the accused is presumed innocent.
There was evidence of collusion. It's in the tapes of the phone calls Gen. Mike Flynn had with the Russian ambassador in December
of 2016. It's just that the collusion was not with Russia but was instead a collusion with another country to get Russia to do
something that would undermine Obama's policy at the U.N. But to reveal those tapes to the public is politically incorrect, and
Robert Mueller wasn't going to go there.
The Mueller Report (The Washington Post edition) page 538 barely touches on it, but you can get the drift.
"Flynn also agreed that he lied to the FBI about another contact with Kislyak, a December 2016 phone call in which Flynn asked
if Russia would delay or vote against a proposed United Nations resolution critical of Israel. Flynn said he made this call at
the direction of a "very senior member" of the presidential transition team," identified later as Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner."
Phil Giraldi, who was terminated at TAC, also did an article on this that you can find on
www.unz.com
. I believe the title of Phil Giraldi's column is "Russiagate is really Israelgate."
Flynn was plea bargaining to save his family from the heavy hand of uncontrolled government prosecutors. He has since withdrawn
the plea so any collusion remains in doubt. This also fits the narrative that the FBI agents did not think Flynn was lying when
they interviewed him.
Well, there is one way to find out for sure, and that would be for the tapes of the Kislyak conversation to be released so we
can hear exactly what Flynn said. It sure can't be classified information as he wasn't yet working for the government during the
transition period in December of 2016. For some reason they don't want those taped phone conversations to be released even in
Judge Emmett Sullivan's courtroom.
No, I found that the report was rather boring, and, of course, there was no proof of any collusion with Russia. The report paints
Trump as a stupid, self serving oaf. I am sure you couldn't bear to even read the report and preferred to get your summary of
it from FOX News.
"The report paints Trump as a stupid, self serving oaf. "
So? Who cares what Mueller and his Democrat minions think? It wasn't the investigations remit to critique Trump as a person
or even as a President.It was to find evidence of collusion and criminal behaviour by Trump and his campaign.
It found NOTHING or the sort. Personal bad behaviour by Manafort in Ukraine doesn't stain trump. Flynn getting caught in a
procedural trap by FBI agents looking entrap him doesn't count (and he is recanting his plea bid now, and good for him).
Unsupported innuendo about bad behaviors mean NOTHING. Trump isn't bound to assist the Witch Hunt against him. He has no obligation
to help those that are concocting fallacies in an attempt to bring down or sabotage his tenure. Refusal to co-operate with your
own lynching by your enemies is not "obstruction". Trump hasn't broken any laws by his refusal to co-operate, and as president,
he has a great amount of privilege in this respect (as all previous presidents have had and exercised when required).
Great big nothing-burger. Accept the truth and get over yourself.
You can all go and ignore the whole Trump impeachment, because it's just smoke to try and
hide the real fire.
Joe Biden's actual blackmail of the Ukrainian government, when he threatened to withhold
$1 billion if the Prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter Biden, wasn't immediately
fired.
Russiagate was to hide Clinton's corruption.
Ukrainegate is to hide Biden's corruption.
You can all go and ignore the whole Trump impeachment, because it's just smoke to try and
hide the real fire.
Joe Biden's actual blackmail of the Ukrainian government, when he threatened to withhold
$1 billion if the Prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter Biden, wasn't immediately
fired.
Russiagate was to hide Clinton's corruption.
Ukrainegate is to hide Biden's corruption.
The US Senate has formally initiated the trial for the removal of US President Donald Trump
from office, which kicked off with House officials reading the charges to the upper chamber and
the swearing-in of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to preside over the process.
Trump's legal team on Saturday released a statement attempting to reject his impeachment by the
House, characterising the charges against the US president as a "dangerous attack" on Americans
and their right to vote.
"We are on strong legal footing. The president has done nothing wrong and we believe that
will be borne out in this process", a source said, ahead of the document's submission to the
Senate scheduled later in the day.
Trump's defence team formally responded to the six-page document containing the articles of
impeachment and stated their opinion on the merits of the two charges - abuse of power and
obstruction of Congress.
"The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on rights of
the American people to freely choose their president. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt
to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just
months away", the document states.
A spokesman for Trump's legal team suggested that the articles of impeachment are
constitutionally invalid. "They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let
alone high crimes and misdemeanors", the document said.
The lawyers reportedly stressed that Trump
did nothing wrong and predicted that he would not be removed from office during the
upcoming Senate trial, adding that the defence team planned to argue that the impeachment
articles violate the US constitution.
On Saturday, US lawmakers managing the Senate removal trial filed a brief laying out their
arguments supporting charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress against the US
president.
The Democratic House of Representatives impeachment managers faced a deadline of 5 p.m. EST
(22:00 GMT) on Saturday to file the document before the trial of the US president starts in
the Senate next week. Lawmakers
argued in the brief that Trump must be removed from the Oval Office to safeguard the
integrity of the upcoming presidential election.
On 18 December, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted along party lines
to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for freezing military aid to
Ukraine in exchange for Kiev launching a probe of political rival Joe Biden.
Trump is the third US president to be impeached. Neither of the previous two, Andrew Johnson
in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 were forced from office. Another US president, Richard Nixon,
resigned in August 1974 before the House could vote on his impeachment, thus avoiding a removal
trial in the Senate.
Trump has
called his impeachment a "witch hunt" designed to overturn the results of the 2016
election.
An unnamed senior Trump administration official told reporters earlier this week that the
president's legal team - made up, in part, of lawyers who formerly worked for deceased
paedophile and sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein - expect a "rapid acquittal" and doubt the removal
trial will last more than two weeks.
The Republican-controlled Senate will almost certainly vote to acquit Trump. No concrete
evidence of wrongdoing was revealed during the House Intelligence Committee's inquiry, and none
of the second-hand witnesses to Trump's infamous phone call with Zelensky revealed any smoking
gun evidence. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has ignored Democrat pleas to admit more
witnesses and more evidence, arguing that the House's case be tried as is.
Meanwhile, Republicans ridiculed Pelosi for sitting on the impeachment articles for four
weeks, despite Democrat claims that Trump posed a "clear and present danger" to national
security, and Pelosi's insistence that removing him was an "urgent concern."
Any doubt that impeachment was a partisan affair was removed by Pelosi on Wednesday night,
when she handed out souvenir pens to reporters after signing the articles, posing in front of a
lectern with a placard reading "#defendourdemocracy" on it. McConnell described the
signing ceremony as "The House's partisan process distilled into one last perfect visual.
Not solemn or serious. A transparently political exercise from beginning to end."
Yesterday, the Speaker celebrated impeachment with souvenir pens, bearing her own golden
signature, brought in on silver platters. The House's partisan process distilled into one
last perfect visual. Not solemn or serious. A transparently political exercise from beginning
to end. pic.twitter.com/AshajRLH2F
McConnell is not above partisan games either, and has openly pledged to work with the White
House to see Trump acquitted.
Which begs the question, what was it all for? If Trump is acquitted, the Democratic Party
has no political capital left to launch another impeachment campaign, even if Trump blatantly
commits the "high crimes and misdemeanors" necessary to trigger an actual, bipartisan
impeachment effort.
Trump then also gets to claim victory, with an acquittal justifying his cries of "witch
hunt" and "presidential harassment," further solidifying his base and embarrassing
the Democrats in front of undecided voters. Pelosi stated on Sunday that regardless of the
trial's outcome, Trump is "impeached for life," but Trump is louder and brasher than
Pelosi, and will milk an acquittal for all it's worth.
Even as the trial against him formally opened on Thursday, the president celebrated the
passage of his US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, his second trade win in two days. His approval
rating also rose
to 51 percent, the highest it's been since he was impeached just over a month ago. All of this
strengthens his argument against the party he's taken to calling "Do Nothing
Democrats."
After the War of Independence from Great Britain, the US had a very different form of
government than the present one. This government functioned under the Articles of
Confederation. This government had been formed in 1775 and had served the rebellious colonies
fairly well throughout the war and into the initial years of peace and separation from the
mother country across the sea.
Some people judged that government to be too loose an arrangement among the constituent
states. A sufficient number of so minded people persuaded the states to convene a convention at
Philadelphia to consider some amendments to the Articles of Confederation and to report these
back as RECOMMENDATIONS to the state legislatures.
That did not happen. Instead the delegates to this convention seized control of the agenda
and wrote a document that created a form of government in which there was an Executive Branch
empowered in many ways to act without the direction given by the Legislative Branch. This
Executive was made to be particularly independent in the conduct of war and and foreign
relations. Some restrictions were established in that the military was to be funded by the
legislature (if it chose to do so). The military was to be designed by the legislature and
officers thereof were to be appointed by the senate on recommendation of the president. In
foreign affairs the appointment of ambassadors and the approval of international treaties were
made the responsibility of the senate as well, but both in war and in foreign relations the
content and conduct of these government affairs were reserved to the Executive Branch. As an
example of this, the Congress of the US had no role in running WW2.. The House of
Representatives did not "sign off" on Operation Overlord or any other plan. The Congress did
make an attempt to control military operations during the Civil War. A Joint Committee on the
Conduct of the War was formed from among the most radical Republicans in both houses, but
Lincoln largely ignored the machinations of this body.
Trump is to be tried for abuse of power and obstructing Congress. In the first instance he
is accused of seeking political advantage by soliciting an investigation of the affairs of Joe
Biden in a telephone call to the president of the Ukraine. His motivations in that call are
unclear and are contested even among those who listened to the call in an official capacity.
Biden was not then a candidate for office. He was a potential candidate. In the second article
Trump is accused of Obstructing Congress. No president has ever been impeached on such a charge
even though an inherent conflict between the Executive and Legislative Branches was built into
the structure of the US Constitution in order to limit the power of both branches. For example;
the president may wish to make some change in government practice that the Congress does not
want. Many presidents have sought to obviate this difficulty by attaching signing statements to
laws passed by Congress. These often say, in effect, "I am signing this but will not execute
the will of Congress." No president has ever been impeached for doing that. Obama did that many
times.
Speaker Pelosi has succeeded indicting Trump on such grounds and now seeks to control the
trial pf the president in the senate through intimidation of members and such devices as
accusing the Majority Leader of the Senate of being a Russian agent of influence "Moscow
Mitch.". Her justification for that is McConnell's unwillingness to obey her.
Pelosi and company are now trying to remove a president on the grounds mentioned above. If
they can do that, they will have succeeded in reverting the power structure within the federal
government, reverting it to something much like the government of the Articles of
Confederation. In that set up the federal government will become driven by the House of
Representatives and will become the sole controlling part of the federal government with the
ability to remove an opposition president through a simple majority vote and a rubber stamp
trial in an intimidated senate. We will then have become a parliamentary democracy with the
Speaker of the House controlling all.
Alan Dershowitz will testify in this wise at Trump's trial. I support his position. pl
I am having trouble getting replies to you posted but here is a
tale on Mogilevitch (2014) that you might find interesting.
I was intrigued by its reference to one of the richest men in Ukraine, Dmytro Firtash and
wondered as to his links to the 'Biden Burisma business' if any. Of course he may have links
to the progeny of Pelosi too. The entire impeachment episode went ballistic as soon as Trump
stated picking over the turds in Ukraine so I suspect that is where the democrazies will come
undone.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has called for a full investigation into
coordination between Congressional Democrats and members of the media, after articles of
impeachment against President Trump appear to have been deliberately 'slow walked' in order to
coincide with two 'bombshell' developments in the Ukraine story.
" Why did they time this? Why did they wait? " asked Fox Business host Trish Regan.
"First off, Rachel Maddow should be a witness of fact now . She should be brought in,"
replied Bannon - referring to the seemingly coordinated media blitz surrounding
Lev Parnas, an indicted former Rudy Goiliani associate whose undated, hand-written notes
appear to support the claim that President Trump pressured Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden
for corruption.
" We ought to have all the emails and all the text messages between Schiff, between Nancy
Pelosi, Phil Griffin at MSNBC News. We ought to bring the whole thing out. How did this get
dropped? Why have they been working on this for so long? How did this just come about at the
last second? She admitted she's been working on this for months, and the House just got this.
The Republicans didn't even see this when the vote when down," said Bannon, adding "This is now
a complete farce."
" I think there was collusion between MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, Lev Parnas's attorneys, and
the entire process." -Steve Bannon
"So why did this not come forward earlier?" asks Regan.
"You know why, because they wanted to drop their "big reveal," this was going be such a big
bombshell. This is all total hearsay from a guy trying to talk his way into a lesser sentence
because he's already indicted. It's so obvious what he's trying to do."
Adding to the collusion / 'slow walk' theory is the
completion of a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requested by
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, which found that President Trump's pause of US aid to
Ukraine violated the law. Of note, virtually every previous administration has received a
similar nastygram from the GAO - just not the day after directly related impeachment articles
were delivered to the Senate ahead of a trial.
Watch: Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has called for a full investigation
into coordination between Congressional Democrats and members of the media, after articles of
impeachment against President Trump appear to have been deliberately 'slow walked' in order to
coincide with two 'bombshell' developments in the Ukraine story.
" Why did they time this? Why did they wait? " asked Fox Business host Trish Regan.
"First off, Rachel Maddow should be a witness of fact now . She should be brought in,"
replied Bannon - referring to the seemingly coordinated media blitz surrounding
Lev Parnas, an indicted former Rudy Goiliani associate whose undated, hand-written notes
appear to support the claim that President Trump pressured Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden
for corruption.
" We ought to have all the emails and all the text messages between Schiff, between Nancy
Pelosi, Phil Griffin at MSNBC News. We ought to bring the whole thing out. How did this get
dropped? Why have they been working on this for so long? How did this just come about at the
last second? She admitted she's been working on this for months, and the House just got this.
The Republicans didn't even see this when the vote when down," said Bannon, adding "This is now
a complete farce."
" I think there was collusion between MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, Lev Parnas's attorneys, and
the entire process." -Steve Bannon
"So why did this not come forward earlier?" asks Regan.
"You know why, because they wanted to drop their "big reveal," this was going be such a big
bombshell. This is all total hearsay from a guy trying to talk his way into a lesser sentence
because he's already indicted. It's so obvious what he's trying to do."
Adding to the collusion / 'slow walk' theory is the
completion of a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requested by
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, which found that President Trump's pause of US aid to
Ukraine violated the law. Of note, virtually every previous administration has received a
similar nastygram from the GAO - just not the day after directly related impeachment articles
were delivered to the Senate ahead of a trial.
David
Reynolds 20 hours ago It's a coup attempt. The Democrats (and other globalists) are
trying to overthrow Trump by any means necessary, because he's totally wrecking the leftist
and globalist agenda. usero misa 19 hours ago
Democrats pulling the same TRICK with this impeachment BS like Justice Kavanaugh's Senate
confirmation hearing. Remember Christine Blasey Ford! Now is Lev Parnas. And like Christine
Ford, Lev Parnas has been secretly coached by the Democrats Legal team, reason for their
delay tactics.
a very good introduction to why this guy is another lair, in all kinds of trouble like
Avanetti and Cohen were...looking for a deal to be presented to stay out of jail. The
interview with Madcow, does not jive with the NYT interview he gave, not does it match up
with what the Ukrainians are saying about this. The Ukrainian Head of Foreign Relations gave
an interview to CNN, and flat out said no one there knows this guy and he never spoke to
anyone including him, and he is NOT to be trusted. But that does not fit in with the
Democrats plan, so they will step in it once again.
Then there is this:
(his) undated, hand-written notes appear to support the claim that President Trump
pressured Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for corruption.
go read them , If you don't laugh then you are the problem. If the Democrats want more
evidence, look here. If you think this guy was on a double, double secrete mission and met
personally with Trump to receive it, then maybe your meds are wrong.
Here is certified "EVIDENCE" for the Democrats just found in the nearby woods.
"... Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor? ..."
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against
Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the
articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?
"... The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted (which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair. ..."
"... But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed before 2014. I would say there is less unity now. ..."
"... Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate, but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) ..."
"... The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling you something. ..."
"... The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down. De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky is trying to do) ? ..."
I feel like robber barons in Kyiv have harmed you more through their looting of the country than impoverished Eastern Ukrainians,
who were the biggest losers in the post-Soviet deindustrilization, have harmed you by existing and dying of diseases of poverty
and despair.
It reminds me of how coastal shit-libs in America talk about "fly-over" country and want all the poor whites in Appalachia
to die. I'm living in a country whose soul is totally poisoned. A country that is dying. While all this is happening, whites have
split themselves into little factions focused on political point scoring.
I doubt people like Zelensky, Kolomoisky, Poroshenko and all the rest are going to turn Ukraine into an earthly paradise. They're
more likely to be Neros playing harps, while Ukraine burns.
Looks like your understanding of Ukraine is mostly based of a short trip to Lvov and reading neoliberal MSM and forums. That's
not enough, unless you want to be the next Max Boot.
Ukraine is a deeply sick patient, which surprisingly still stands despite all hardships (Ukrainians demonstrated amazing, superhuman
resilience in the crisis that hit them, which greatly surprised all experts).
The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central
heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations
and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted
(which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair.
And, what is really tragic Ukraine now it is a debt state. Usually the latter is the capital sentence for the county. Few managed
to escape even in more favorable conditions (South Korea is one.) So chances of economic recovery are slim: with such level of parasitic
rent to the West the natural path is down and down. Don't cry for me Argentina.
And there is no money to replace already destroyed due to bad maintenance infrastructure, but surprisingly large parts of Soviets
era infrastructure still somehow hold. For example, electrical networks, subway cars. But other part are already crumbling.
For example, in Kiev that means in some buildings you have winter without central heating, you have elevators in 16-storey buildings
that work one or two weeks in month, you have no hot water, sometimes you have no water at all for a week or more, etc). Pensioners
have problem with paying heating bills, so some of them are forced to live in non-heated apartments.
And that's in Kiev/Kyiv (Western Ukrainians love to change established names, much like communists) . In provincial cities it
is a real horror show when even electricity supply became a problem. The countryside dwellers at least has its own food, but the
situation for them is also very very difficult.
Other big problem -- few jobs and almost no well paid job, unless you are young, know English and have a university education
(and are lucky). Before 2014 approximately 70% of Ukrainian labor migrants (in total a couple of million) came from the western part
of the country, in which migration had become a widespread method of coping with poverty, the absence of jobs and low salaries.
Now this practice spread to the whole county. That destroyed many families.
The USA plays its usual games selling vassals crap at inflated prices (arms, uranium rods, coal, locomotives, cars, etc) , which
Ukrainians can't refuse. Trump is simply a typical gangster in this respect, running a protection racket.
The rate of emigration and shrinking population is another fundamental problem. Mass emigration (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
) is continuing even after Zelensky election. Looting by the West also continues unabated. This is disaster capitalism in action.
Add to those problems inflated military expenses to fight the civil war in Donbass which deprives other sectors of necessary funds
(with the main affect of completely alienating Russia) and "Huston, we have a problem."
May be this is a natural path for xUSSR countries after the dissolution of the USSR, I don't know.
But the destiny of ordinary Ukrainians is deeply tragic: they wanted better life and got a really harsh one. Especially pensioners
(typical pension is something like $60-$70) a month in Kiev, much less outside of Kiev. How they physically survive I do not fully
understand.
There are still pro-Russian areas but being free of Crimea and Donbass means Ukraine can no longer be characterized as "split."
I agree that there is a substantial growth of anti-Russian sentiments. It is really noticeable. As well as growth of the usage
of the Ukrainian language (previously Kiev, unlike Lvov was completely Russian-language city).
And in Western Ukraine Russiphobia was actually always a part of "national identity". The negative definition of national identity,
if you wish. See popular slogan "Hto ne skache toi moskal" ("those who do not jump are Moskal" -- where Moskal is the derogatory
name for a Russian). Here is this slogan in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6rfqr9afMc
;-)
But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different
ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed
before 2014. I would say there is less unity now.
Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both
categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate,
but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) .
"Donetskie" (former Donbass dwellers, often displaced by the war) are generally strongly resented and luxury cars, villas, etc
and other excesses of neoliberal elite are attributed mostly to them (Donbass neoliberal elite did moved to Kiev, not Moscow)
, while "zapadentsi" are also, albeit less strongly, resented because they often use clan politics within institutions, and often
do not put enough effort (or are outright incompetent), as they rely on its own clan ties for survival.
This sentiment is stronger to the south of Kiev where the resentment is directed mainly against Western Ukrainians, not against
"Donetskie" like in Kiev. And I am talking not only about Odessa. Western Ukrainians are now strongly associated with corrupt ways
of getting lucrative positions (via family, clan or political connections), being incompetent and doing nothing useful.
What surprise me is that this resentment against "zapadentsi" and "Poloshenko clan" is shared by many people from Western Ukraine.
The target is often slightly more narrow, for example Hutsuls in Lviv (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsuls )
The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist
and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's
why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling
you something.
The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down.
De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders
from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky
is trying to do) ?
Ukraine will probably eventually lose a large part of its chemical industry because without subsidies for gas it just can't complete
even taking into account low labor costs. And manufacturing because without Russian market it is difficult to find a place for their
production in already established markets, competing only in price and suffering in quality (I remember something about Iraq returning
Ukrainians all ordered armored carriers due to defect is the the armor
https://sputniknews.com/military/201705221053859853-armored-vehicles-defects-extent
/). Although at least for the Ukrainian arm industry there is place on the market in countries which are used to old Soviet armaments,
because those are rehashed Soviet products.
Add to this corrupt and greedy diaspora (all those Jaresko, Chalupas, Freelands, Vindmans, etc ) from the USA and Canada (and
not only diaspora -- look at Biden, Kerry, etc) who want their piece of the pie after 2014 "Revolution of dignity" (what a sad joke)
and you will see the problems more clearly. Not that much changed from the period 1991-2014 where Ukraine was also royally fleeced
by own oligarchs allied with Western banksers, simply now this leads to quicker deterioration of the standard of living.
None of Eastern European countries benefited from a color revolution staged by the USA. This is about opening the country not
only to multinationals (while they loot the county they at least behave within a certain legal bounds, demonstrating at least decency
of gangsters like in Godfather), but to petty foreign criminals from diaspora and outside of it who allies with the local oligarchs
and smallernouveau riche and are siphoning all the county wealth to western banks as soon as possible. Greed of the disapora is simply unbounded.
https://neweasterneurope.eu/2016/08/26/the-ukrainian-diaspora-as-a-recipient-of-oligarchic-cash/
Of course, Ukrainian diaspora is not uniform. Still, outside well-know types from the tiny Mid-Eastern country, the most dangerous
people for Ukraine are probably Ukrainians from diaspora with dual citizenship
When the Vindman story broke last week, we were pathetically reminded that there is a
conspiracy against Ukraine and the Diaspora in America. Conspiracy theorists labeled the
Ukrainian government integral nationalists plotting against the current President of the United
States even before the final ballots were tallied 2016.
Although this article will contain many of the elements of the still-developing Vindman
story that have been reported on, the focus shifts over to the bigger question- Why? I propose
we take a walk into the back of Vindman's mind, which easier done than said. As will be shown,
this in part is due to the fact that his thought pattern about Ukraine is reflexive.
There is no need to question his military service before this juncture because it posed no
conflict for him. Although the US Army is backing his right as a whistleblower now, his
motivations in this situation could end up
with Vindman receiving a court-martial . It's all about his motivation.
Alexander Vindman's ties to Ukraine should have made him disclose a few large conflicts of
interest before being assigned in the capacity he has.
Vindman had business interests in
Ukraine which would suffer if the relationship between both countries was jeopardized. Was it
Vindman's American patriotism or Diaspora nationalism that led him to share the Oval Office
transcript with Ukraine's president?
According to the Gateway Pundit , "Colonel Vindman may have violated the federal leaking
statute 18 USC 798 when he leaked the president's classified call to several other
operatives."
As the in-house expert, Vindman would have known this and yet he still conducted himself in
the service of Ukraine. In Vindman's world view it must be acceptable behavior for a foreign
government official to threaten his own country's Commander-in-Chief.
What are his motivations? In his own words, Vindman lays out his priorities.
I
was concerned by the call,"Vindman said, according to his testimony obtained by the
Associated Press. "Idid not think it was properto demand that a foreign
government investigate a U.S. citizen, andI was worried about the implicationsfor the U.S. government's support of Ukraine."-Vindman
Vindman's real concern is the implications of US foreign policy toward Ukraine and keeping
it on track with what he thought it should be. I'm sure every Lt Colonel that has a concern
intercedes in foreign policy everywhere across the US army.
"In this situation, a strong
and independent Ukraine is critical to U. S. national security interests because Ukraine is a
frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression. In spite of beingunder
assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukrainehas taken major steps towards
integrating with the West." When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the
administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019,I became aware of outside
influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the
interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency
colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects,this
alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.-Vindman
" Once Ukraine determined that the RF (Russian Federation) was not going to attack and
Russia was not a credible threat, they launched their Anti-Terrorist Operations against the
rebels (p 65)." Russia's Hybrid War in Ukraine: Breaking the Enemy's Ability to Resist Finnish
Institute of International Studies by András Rácz
What false narrative was Vindman talking about? It was the fact there was no Russian
aggression, assaults or invasions going on. Where did this "false narrative" originate?
In 2014, Ukrainian-American Mark Paslawsky joined Ukraine's Donbas battalion. He was the
nephew of one of WWII's most sadistic torturers, Mikola Lebed. Lebed was 3 rd in the
Bandera OUN command chain.
Paslawsky was reported to be an officer in the 75 th Ranger Battalion during the
1990s which puts him on the same pedestal as Alexander Vindman in terms of patriotic duty in
the US military.
The volunteer battalions like Ukraine's Donbas are police and cleansing battalions.
Paslawsky was true to his Ukrainian Diaspora upbringing and family heritage. As soon as it was
opportune, he forgot about honor, service, and codes of conduct when he entered Ukraine.
By July 2014, one month before Paslawsky was killed, Oleg Dube, 2 nd in command
of the battalion complained on Twitter that the battalion was full of cowards shooting
everything that moved and throwing grenades into the houses, cellars, and every structure
killing everyone and everything they came across.
These were civilians they murdered. But Paslawsky, who tweeted his adventures under the
handle "bruce springnote" made one thing abundantly clear- There were no Russian troops or
invasion going on as of August 2, 2014.
This means Vindman's tale saying there as five years of Russian aggression is getting
sketchy.
November 6 th , 2015
In an interview with Gromadske.TV , Markian Lubkivsky, the adviser to the head of the SBU
(the Ukrainian version of the CIA) stated there are NO RUSSIAN TROOPS ON UKRANIAN SOIL! This
unexpected announcement came as he fumbled with reporters' questions on the subject. According
to his statement, he said the SBU counted about 5000 Russian nationals, but not Russian
soldiers in Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. During a briefing with General Muzenko he announced that "To
date, we have only the involvement of some members of the Armed Forces of the Russian
Federation and Russian citizens that are part of illegal armed groups involved in the fighting.
We are not fighting with the regular Russian Army. We have enough forces and means in order to
inflict a final defeat even with illegal armed formation present. " – Ukrainian Armed
Forces Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Muzenko said. Is
Russia About to Invade Ukraine? UkraineAlert by Alexander J. Motyl published at the
Atlantic Council December 13, 2018
These are primary sources that LTC (Lieutenant Colonel) Vindman and the Wall Street
Journal's Pulitzer Prize winner Scott Shane call conspiracy theorists. The Ukrainian government
from Torchinov to Poroshenko to Zelenskiy has kept Russia as their primary trade partner this
entire time. This is a bit unusual for a country that says another is committing aggression
against it. Furthermore, where are the international court cases if this is happening?
If the White House Ukraine expert isn't fact-checking, what is he basing his position on?
Hate, just pure unadulterated hate.
"The second reason I mention Paslawsky is that he was, after all, a Ukrainian American.
In killing him -- and make no mistake about it: Putin killed him -- Putin has taken on, in
addition to the entire world, the Ukrainian American Diaspora. He probably thinks it's a joke.
But in killing a Ukrainian American, he's made the war in Ukraine personal for Ukrainian
Americans. Their intellectual, material, and political resources are far greater than Putin can
imagine. Be forewarned, Vlad: diasporas have long memories.And this one will give you
and your apologists in Russia and the West no rest.-Alexander Motyl Loose Cannons and Ukrainian Casualties
The Diaspora's hatred for Russia is hardwired into their culture in America. It was here the
concept was fleshed out, not in Ukraine.
Lonhyn Tsehelsky was Secretary of Internal Affairs and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for
the government of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic in 1917-18. When the almost formed
republic collapsed, he immigrated to America. Tsehelsky formed the Ukrainian Congressional
Committee of America (UCCA) and brought W. Ukrainian nationalism to America. He is the great
uncle to Ukraine's ultra-nationalist Rada minister, Oleh Tyanhybok.
According to Wikipedia In 1902 Tsehelsky published Rus'-Ukraïna but
Moskovshchyna-Rossia (Rus-Ukraine but Moscow-Russia) which had a significant impact on
Ukrainian ideas in both Galicia and in Russian-ruled Ukraine. In this book, he highlighted
differences that he claimed existed between Ukrainians and Russians in order to show that any
union between the two peoples was impossible. Tsehelsky claimed that Ukrainians historically
wanted self-rule, while Russians historically sought servitude. Tsehelsky wrote that Ukrainians
who opposed Ivan Mazepa were traitors and that Ukrainian history consisted of a constant
struggle of Ukrainian attempts at autonomy in opposition to Russian attempts to impose
centralization.
Because the formation of the UCCA is based in this thought and OUNb Bandera lead the
Ukrainian-American Diaspora, the politics of hate is what drives them, nothing
else.
According
to LTC Jim Hickman who served on a combined US-Russian exercise with Vindman, "At that
point, I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I'll leave it at that, so as not to be
unprofessional myself. The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far
back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is
not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the
right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our
nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers
intended!" and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic
prosperity .-Vindman
US military officers are not in the business of vibrant economies or democracy. Ukraine
can't realize Vindman's dream of a vibrant democracy because Ukraine has a nationalism built on
Italian fascist philosopher Julius Evola.
"We are not speaking, of course,
of Nationalist ideology, which a radical fringe (or, if you prefer, a leading
elite) of Western Ukrainian society adopted in the 1930s and pursued through violent means.
Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky condemned it at the time, contrasting it with Christian
patriotism.
Some see the result as a defeat for nationalism. Certainly, it looks like a repudiation
of the traditional type of nationalism based on ethnicity, language, history, culture, and
religion.
That is the "old" nationalism of President Poroshenko – and most of our
diaspora"-The Ukrainian Weekly May 11, 2019
Poroshenko made W. Ukraine the model for Ukrainian society today, but what about the
Diaspora? That radical fringe was the OUN political model that the Diaspora stayed immersed in
and is trying to change the United States into.
In their own words- " Unity to act when required has been the diaspora's mantra –
this cannot be disputed. As time moves on, we see that things take a natural course. We see
that two wings of the OUN – Banderivtsi, and Melnykivtsi – are working actively on
the international level, working in partnership and currently are in strong negotiations about
becoming a single entity again".-Ukraine Weekly Aug 26, 2016
Ukraine's Zelenskiy was able to run for president based on how he negotiated through these
two groups. Poroshenko was OUNb Banderivtsi's candidate. Zelenskiy was OUNm Melnykivtsi's
candidate. The difference between the two is nominal. They both have a history built on torture
and murder.
For a background this shows what's going on in Ukrainian politics in 2019.
The Ukrainian Diaspora openly claims not just the violent legacy of Stepan Bandera but also
the mantle and mandate to attack anything they see threatening their power in Ukraine and
influence on the US government. LTC Vindman is part of this culture.
Why are Ukrainian-Americans at the forefront of every attempt to impeach Donald Trump as
well as the deep-state coup going on? Today, Donald Trump is threatening to remove this rancid
influence from American politics.
Looking at the patriotic image the Ukrainian Diaspora tries to project, let's go back to
their charter statement on American civics.
In 1936 the OUN publication, The Nationalist, stated its position pretty clearly about the
United States to the native groups that revolved around the UCCA after the war as well as the
position they deserved in society.
"Nationalism is the love of country and the willingness to sacrifice for her A person
brought up asa Ukrainian Nationalist will make a one hundred percent better AMERICAN
CITIZEN than one who is not.
Was it Nazis or Fascism that guided Washington, Lincoln, or other statesmen to make the
U.S. a world power? Or was it American Nationalism?"
As you can see, they haven't changed methods or politics since the 1930s. If they don't like
a US president, they try to get rid of him or her in the most convenient way possible. Their
issue with Roosevelt is he would never accept Nationalism. Today, they still call the Democrat
president Roosevelt, a socialist.
But, how far across Ukrainian-American society does this go?
"I do care about social and economic issues affecting every American, but given the war
in Ukraine, there is onlyone issue that we as Ukrainian Americans must focus on:
UkraineThe Central and East European Coalition is a coalition of U.S.-based
organizations that represent their countries of heritage,a voting group of over 20
million people A vote for Trump is a vote against Ukraine!The upcoming presidential
election will be the most important election in which Ukrainian Americans will participate. We
can make a difference with deeds not words.Anybody
but Trump!- Ukrainian Weekly
This linked series documents
how the Diaspora does it and the impact they have. This article shows
why Donald Trump won the 2016 election. If the Democrats are successful removing the
Electoral College, the actual vote will be determined by 15 cities. Your vote, win or lose, no
longer counts if you don't live in one of them. This is the reason all the Diasporas are
strategically located for political impact.
The history and involvement of Alexandra and Andrea Chalupa in both the 2014 Ukraine coup
and the election hacking, as well as Russian interference stories, is well known. These two
Ukrainian Diaspora sisters are the originators of the impeachment movement of Donald Trump
which started just after he declared victory in 2016. Inside the above links, we have another
20 million Diaspora people who think the same way politically and socially.
Although this goes beyond partisan lines in Congress, the Democratic Party is overflowing
with Diaspora operatives today. Adam Parkhomenko is a great example of this. He
describes himself as Democratic Strategist, Consultant, Political Adviser. Dad.
Ukrainian-American. Whatever order, son Cameron's my life.
Parkhomenko works with the
DNC, Atlantic Council groups, and other groups trying to illegally overthrow the presidency.
Members of Congress celebrate this same Ukrainian nationalist brutality in Ukraine and its
sister nationalists ISIS in Syria as well as Ukraine. ISIS also adheres to Julius Evola
politically. If you want to know what Ukrainian nationalism looks like with no one buffering
them, ISIS is ideal to study. This is what they want to do in Donbass. This is what they want
America to become.
"I don't want to dwell on Islamicist ideology; I don't know that much about it. Still, we
should note that recent Islamicist terrorists quote Evola with facility One of the features of
political Tradition has been the search for a school of the transcendent that could serve as
the organizing principle of a new society.
Theoretically, any of the great religious traditions might serve. In practice, though,
Traditionalists have usually chosen a radical version of Islam or some kind of neopaganism;
Tradition can be scary, however. Sometimes this knowledge of the inevitable collapse of the
modern world inspires nothing more than the formation of groups of adepts who hope to manage
the transition when civilization collapses. Sometimes, however, Tradition has sparked the
creation of anarchist political groups that hope to accelerate the collapse." After the Third
Age Eschatological Elements of Postwar International Fascism, presented by Professor John
Reilly at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Center for Millennial Studies, Boston
University, November 2 to 4, 2002
Julius Evola was one of the founders of what became known as the "Tradition" and has
adherents infecting all major religions with a fascist/ nationalist construct. According to the
fascist Evola (esoteric fascism), immortality is attained by the conscious act that ignores the
ramifications of death while plunging headlong into it without a thought. This has nothing to
do with the type of religion an adherent is or its afterlife traditions.-
The Millennial Studies project at Boston University is engaged in the study of groups and
ideology that pose existential threats and will eventually destroy the modern world.
Hence, they named the dangerous time we live in post-modern. It is quite literally the study
of an impending apocalypse. The project reports to the government on the real nature of these
groups and ideologies to give the government a basis for dealing with them.
This takes us back to Alexander Vindman as a just another sample of this rabidly nationalist
community.
A Tale of Two Diasporas
Vindman grew up in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn NY. Its nickname, Little Odessa stems from the
large Russians and Ukrainian enclave that grew big from the 1970s onward. Critiques argue that
because of the dense population of Russian speaking people, it's hardly the place you'd find
Ukrainian nationalists. The statement is false.
In reality, what you had during the 1970s and 80s through the end of the Cold War was a
dense anti-Communist population of which the leading edge was the Ukrainian nationalist
Yaroslav Stetsko. After WWII, the Russian anti-communist émigré's that fought
against the Soviet Union relocated from the Displaced Person camps to the US.
This anti-Communist wave sought to be active in US countermeasures against the Soviet Union
alongside the Ukrainian nationalists. Because the Ukrainians refused to work with Russian
nationals, they were rejected.
This is a slice of the Russian emigration experience. The Russians kept the important
cultural ties but assimilated politically into US democracy politically. Many did maintain a
staunch anti-Communist stance throughout the Cold War which transformed into a strong
anti-Putin stance during the years after the wall came down.
For the Ukrainians, almost 50 years of Cold War intrigue kept them bound inside the politics
of extreme nationalism. For Soviet émigrés from Ukraine, Little Odessa's Russian
speaking Ukrainian community which developed in the 1970s would be the most comfortable place
to live.
The most uncomfortable fact about Ukrainian émigrés to the US is even through
this period, the anti-Communist tag meant they came from one side of the Bandera experience or
the other. Ukrainian anti-Communism is synonymous with Ukrainian nationalism.
In Ukraine during the 1970s, your grandparents either fought for the Soviet Army or they
fought against them. This means you were a victim of Nazi aggression, fought for Nazis, or
fought against Nazism. This in itself isn't a smudge or a smear on Vindman or anyone else.
Growing up in Brighton Beach inside a mixed Ukrainian-Russian population would have buoyed
his family's political beliefs. Little Odessa is part of Brooklyn and isn't an island separated
from the Ukrainian nationalist groups critics are arguing applies to Alexander Vindman.
New York is the headquarters of the Ukrainian Congressional Committee of America (UCCA). If
you take part in public Ukrainian cultural life in New York, you rub shoulders with Bandera's
OUNb.
During and after the Cold War, NGOs formed claiming representation in Congress for entire
Diasporas like the UCCA does for Ukrainian-Americans. Today is no different.
The political makeup of the Russian Diaspora in Brooklyn is much the same as it was when
Vindman's family moved there. The Russian-Ukrainian population is staunchly anti-communist
which translated into anti-Putin Russians for many of them. They want to change the face of the
Russian Federation.
"And so it was on a spring day in 2014 that Gindler, in his deep Russian voice, started
talking about Vladimir Putin and called the leader a "nano-Führer."His
distrust and distaste for Russia's president is shared by many in the community.""You shouldn't talk to any Russian-speaking person here in the West and expect any
positive words about Putin," said Gindler, a registered independent voter who cast his ballot
for Trump in November Gindler immigrated to New York from Ukraine in 1995, a few years after
the fall of the Soviet Union.-Business Insider
These sentiments aren't unique in the Russian-Ukrainian Diasporas. It gives a clear insight
into the environment Vindman grew up in except for one thing. The Russian Diaspora found their
expression through voting and adding to the American experience like many Diasporas. According
to official numbers, about 35% of the Russian Diaspora feels this way.
Even after Vindman's family emigrated to Little Odessa in the 1970s, the Ukrainian Diaspora
were known as political animals, or to be kind, the activists-activist. They still are today.
Not content with the American civic experience, they showed how much they are willing to tilt
the table during election 2016.
What does this mean in 2019 for the Russian Diaspora? It means going forward the only
representation they have in Congress today is provided by Ukrainian nationalists. The Ukrainian
Diaspora of which Alexander Vindman is a solid part of represents Russian émigré
interests at the Congressional level.
That's tilting the table.
"We represent and coordinate the Russia diaspora. We pay special attention to those who
haverecently left Russia due to the considerable deterioration of the political and
economic situation.
The Free Russia Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, nongovernmental U.S.-based
organization, led by Russians abroad that seeks to be a voice for those who can't speak under
the repression of the current Russian leadership. We represent and coordinate the Russia
diaspora. We pay special attention to those who have recently left Russia due to the
considerable deterioration of the political and economic situation. We are focused on
developing a strategic vision of Russia 'After Putin' and 'Without Putinism' and a concrete
program for the transition period. We will continue to inform international policy-makers, mass
media and opinion leaders on the real situation in Russia We maintain our extensive networks of
key political, business and civil society leaders throughout Russia. This gives us access to
news and events in real-time. In addition, we are a hub for recently transplanted Russians and
experts on every aspect of Russian society."Free Russia Foundation
They U.S.
policymakers on events in Russia in real-time Support the formulation of an effective and
sustainable Russia policy in the U.S.
This is an Atlantic Council production and Michael D. Weiss is on the Board of Directors.
What's notable is they have two locations. One in Washington DC to be close to policymakers and
the other is Free Russia House in Kyiv vul. Kyrylivska, 26/2 Kyiv, Ukraine 04071
Like I said, Ukrainians like Alexander Vindman are trying to represent the Russian Diaspora
and promote Ukraine and the Ukrainian Diaspora's interests.
The basis for understanding why Vindman is clumsily trying to push Donald Trump's
impeachment can be found in the following post. This girl left a mid-west university to relive
the NAZI experience her grandparents had. If they were UPA, her grandparents were involved with
committing the Holocaust and mass murder. This was written just after Maidan ended and months
before the civil war in Ukraine began.
" I have
often thought of my ancestors and how they must have felt during WWII (and earlier
liberation movements) and the partisan struggle to liberate Ukraine from totalitarian powers.
I've always been fascinated by WWII and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), but never in my
life did I think I would feel what they felt, get a taste of war, death, and the fight for
freedom, such uncertainty, and love for Ukraine in a context similar to theirs These sentiments
which were felt by Ukrainians in WWII have been transferred to a new generation of Ukrainians
who are reliving the liberation movement, re-struggling for a free, prosperous, and democratic
Ukraine. Of course, EuroMaidan and Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine . I feel that I was
guided to Ukraine because the love for and attachment to Ukraine was passed down from my
grandparents, and as they couldn't return My grandparents' generation fight for freedom didn't
succeed, there was no independent Ukraine after the war, and so being intelligentsia and having
taken part in the liberation struggle, my relatives would have been persecuted under the
Soviets.
Thus in 1944 when the Soviets were again approaching western Ukraine, my grandparents had to
flee west Eventually sotnias(defense/ military units) were formed during EuroMaidan and I
couldn't help but think that the last time sotnias were formed was during the war by the UPA
The UPA slogan "Glory to Ukraine" and response "Glory to the Heroes" as well as the UPA songs
sounded from maidan's across the country, and the black and red UPA flags flew next to the
yellow and blue ones. There are in fact a lot more parallels between WWII and EuroMaidan/ the
Russian invasion And once we finally had a taste of victory, finally ousted the corrupt
president, finally felt we had a chance to completely reboot the country, root out the Soviet
mentality once and for all."- Areta Kovalsky
To drive it home, long after LTV Vindman's youth was over, NAZI monsters are still to be
emulated in New York and CT.
Can Waffen SS officers and mass murderers like Stepan Bandera be Catholic patron saints in
cities like New York, Philadelphia, Stamford CT, or Boston in the year 2015?
"On October 16, 2011, members
of the 54th branch of CYM "Khersones" in Stamford, CTattended a mass and requiem
service in honor of the great Ukrainian hero and freedom fighter, Stepan Bandera. It was the
first time since its' inception that the branches' members took part in an organized activity
together with the greater Ukrainian community of Stamford.
The SUM members and the faithful present that day enjoyed a beautiful and emotional
homily about the life and achievements of Stepan Bandera delivered by Reverend Bohdan Danylo,
Rector of St. Basil's Seminary in Stamford. He instructed the children on how they can model
their own lives on Bandera's by following his example of self-sacrifice and unwavering
dedication to his country. Following the homily, Father Bohdan distributed candles to each
child which burned brightly during a stirring execution of the prayer "Vichnaya Pam'yat" in
honor of the great hero of the Ukrainian nation."
If you understand the tender emotion expressed watching protesters and police die, you can
understand the mind of a Ukrainian nationalist. Vindman is no exception. His history, heroism,
and sense of duty don't cover him or excuse him. He reported no crimes that were committed by
the sitting President he is trying to impeach. He only said he felt bad for Ukraine. That's not
good enough.
About the impeachment of President Donald Trump she engineered with her Democratic majority,
Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday: "It's not personal. It's not political. It's not partisan. It's
patriotic."
Seriously, Madam Speaker? Not political? Not partisan?
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against
Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the
articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?
The truth : The impeachment of Donald Trump is the fruit of a malicious prosecution whose
roots go back to the 2016 election, in the aftermath of which stunned liberals and Democrats
began to plot the removal of the new president.
This coup has been in the works for three years.
First came the crazed charges of Trump's criminal collusion with Vladimir Putin to hack the
emails of the DNC and the Clinton campaign and funnel them to WikiLeaks.
For two years, we heard the cries of "Treason!" from Pelosi's caucus. And despite the
Mueller investigation's exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia, we still
hear the echoes:
Trump is Putin's poodle. Trump is an asset of the Kremlin.
All we want, and what the American people deserve, is a "fair trial," Democrats and their
media collaborators now insist. But can a fair trial proceed from a manifestly deficient and
malicious prosecution?
Consider. In this impeachment, we are told, the House serves as the grand jury, and Adam
Schiff's Intelligence Committee and Jerry Nadler's Judiciary Committee serve as the
investigators and prosecutors.
But the articles of impeachment on which the Judiciary Committee and the House voted do not
contain a single crime required by the Constitution for impeachment and removal. There is no
charge of treason, no charge of bribery or "other high crimes and misdemeanors."
So weak is the case for impeachment that the elite in this city is demanding that the Senate
do the work the House failed to do.
The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce, to make
the case for impeachment more persuasive than it is now.
Not our job, rightly answers Mitch McConnell.
The Senate is supposed to be an "impartial jury."
But while there is a debate over whether Republicans will vote to call witnesses, there is
no debate on how the Senate Democrats intend to vote -- 100% for removal of a president they
fear they may not be able to defeat.
Consider Trump's alleged offense : pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to
investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden.
Assume Zelenskiy, without prodding, sent to the U.S., as a friendly act to ingratiate
himself with Trump, the Burisma file on Hunter Biden.
Would that have been a crime?
Why is it then a crime if Trump asked for the file?
The military aid Trump held up for 10 weeks -- lethal aid Barack Obama denied to Kyiv -- was
sent. And Zelenskiy never held the press conference requested, never investigated Burisma,
never sent the Biden file.
There is a reason why no crime was charged in the impeachment of Donald Trump. There was no
crime committed.
Not political, said Pelosi. Why then did she hold up sending the articles of impeachment to
the Senate for a month, after she said it was so urgent that Trump be impeached that Schiff and
Nadler could not wait for their subpoenas to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court?
Pelosi is demanding that the Senate get the documents, subpoena and hear the witnesses, and
do the investigative work Schiff and Nadler failed to do.
Does that not constitute an admission that a convincing case was not made? Are not the
articles voted by the House inherently deficient if the Senate has to have more evidence than
the House prosecutors could produce to convict the president of "abuse of power"?
Can we really have a fair trial in the Senate, when half of the jury, the Democratic caucus,
is as reliably expected to vote to remove the president as Republicans are to acquit him? What
kind of fair trial is it when we can predict the final vote before the court hears the
evidence?
It is ridiculous to deny that this impeachment is partisan, political and personal. It reeks
of politics, partisanship and Trump-hatred.
As for patriotic, that depends on where you stand -- or sit.
But the forum to be entrusted with the decision of "should Trump go?" is not a deeply
polarized Senate, but with those the Founding Fathers entrusted with such decisions -- the
American people.
In most U.S. courts, a prosecution case this inadequate, with prosecutors asking the court
itself to get more documents and call more witnesses, and so visibly contaminated with malice
toward the accused, would be dismissed outright.
Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, and then call for a vote to
dismiss, and treat this indictment with the contempt it so richly deserves.
The U.S. effort to coerce European foreign policy through tariffs, a move one European
official equated to "extortion," represents a new level of hardball tactics with the United
States' oldest allies, underscoring the extraordinary tumult in the transatlantic
relationship.
...
U.S. officials conveyed the threat directly to officials in London, Berlin and Paris rather
than through their embassies in Washington, said a senior European official, who like
others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.
Yes the US extorted their own "allies" to get them to betray Iran and destroy their own
reputations. I must say the one thing i begrudgingly like about Trump is his honest upfront
thuggist actions. After the backroom betrayals of Obama bush clinton merkel and the rest its
almost refreshingly honest. Also i can think of no quicker way of destroying the US empire
than by threatening your own allies the MIC must be desperate to start a new never ending
war, although perhaps they should be careful of what they wish for
The
Open Society and Anti-Defamation League have gone ballistic last week demanding for the
unprecedented eternal banning of Joe diGenova from Fox News or else.
DiGenova (former Federal Attorney for the District of Columbia) committed a grievous crime
indeed, calling out the unspeakable "philanthropist" George Soros on Fox News' Lou Dobbs Show
on Nov. 14 as a force controlling a major portion of the American State Department and FBI. To
be specific, DiGenova stated: "no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the
career foreign service of the United States State Department. He also controls the activities
of FBI agents overseas who work for NGOs -- work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine.
And Kent was part of that. He was a very big protector of Soros." DiGenova was here referencing
State Department head George Kent who's testimony is being used to advance President Trump's
impeachment.
Open Society Foundation President Patrick Gaspard denounced Fox ironically calling them
"McCarthyite" before demanding the network impose total censorship on all condemnation of
Soros. Writing to Fox News' CEO, Gaspard stated: "I have written to you in the past about the
pattern of false information regarding George Soros that is routinely blasted over your
network. But even by Fox's standards, last night's episode of Lou Dobbs tonight hit a new low
This is beyond rhetorical ugliness, beyond fiction, beyond ludicrous."
Of course, the ADL and Gaspard won't let anyone forget that any attack on George Soros is an
attack on Jews the world over, and so it goes that the ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt jumped
into the mud saying "Invoking Soros as controlling the State Dept, FBI, and Ukraine is
trafficking in some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes." He followed that up by demanding Fox ban
DiGenova saying: "If Mr. DiGenova insists on spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, there
is absolutely no reason for Fox News to give him an open mic to do so. Mainstream news networks
should never give a platform to those who spread hate."
Even though the MSM including the Washington Post, NY Times and other rags, not to mention
countless Soros-affiliated groups have come out on the attack, DiGenova's statements cannot be
put back in the bottle, and their attacks just provoke more people to dig more deeply into the
dark dealings of Soros and the geopolitical masterclass that use this a-moral, former Nazi
speculator as their anti-nation state mercenary.
A Little Background on Soros
As has been extensively documented in many locations , ever since young Soros' talents were
identified as a young boy working for the Nazis during WWII (a time he describes as the best
and most formative of his life), this young sociopath was recruited to the managerial class of
the empire becoming a disciple of the "Open Society" post-nation state theories of Karl Popper
while a student in London. He latter became one of the first hedge fund managers with startup
capital provided by Evelyn Rothschild in 1968 and rose in prominence as a pirate of
globalization, assigned at various times to unleash speculative attacks on nations resisting
the world government agenda pushed by his masters (in some cases even attacking the center of
power- London itself in 1992 which provided an excuse for the London oligarchs to stay out of
the very euro trap that they orchestrated for other European nations to walk into).
After the Y2K bubble, Soros began devoting larger parts of his resources to international
drug legalization, euthanasia lobbying, color revolutions and other regime change programs
under the guise of "Human Rights" organizations which have done a remarkable job destroying the
sovereignty of Sudan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria to name a few. Since the economic crisis of
2008-09 (which his speculation helped create through unbounded currency and derivatives
speculation), Soros has begun to advocate a new world governance system centred on what has
recently been called the
"Green New Deal" which has less to do with saving nature, and everything to do with
depopulation.
So when the ADL, and Open Society attacks someone for being anti-semitic, you know that
whomever they are attacking are probably doing something useful.
Barbara Boyd correctly called Kent testimony "obsine" becase it was one grad neocon
gallisination, which has nothing to do with real facts on the ground.
She attributed those dirty games not only to the USA but also to London.
If you want to stop the coup against the President, you must understand how Joe Biden and
Hillary Clinton's State Department carried out a coup against the democratically elected
government of Ukraine in 2014.
In a November 16 webcast, LaRouche PAC's Barbara Boyd presented the real story behind the
present impeachment farce: how the very forces running the attack on President Trump, used
thugs as their enforcers, in order to turn Ukraine into a pawn in the British geopolitical war
drive against Russia.
If you want to stop the coup against the President, you must
understand how Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton's State Department carried out a coup against the
democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014.
In a November 16 webcast, LaRouche PAC's Barbara Boyd presented the real story behind the
present impeachment farce: how the very forces running the attack on President Trump, used
thugs as their enforcers, in order to turn Ukraine into a pawn in the British geopolitical war
drive against Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/uBg3vLjWePI?feature=oembed&wmode=transparent Must Watch
Videos
Everyone keeps dancing around it: Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani
was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. Who profits from
Peace? Who does not?
The killing of Soleimani, while a tragic even with far reaching consequences, is just
an illustration of the general rule: MIC does not profit from peace. And MIC dominates
any national security state, into which the USA was transformed by the technological
revolution on computers and communications, as well as the events of 9/11.
The USA government can be viewed as just a public relations center for MIC. That's why
Trump/Pompeo/Esper/Pence gang position themselves as rabid neocons, which means MIC
lobbyists in order to hold their respective positions. There is no way out of this
situation. This is a classic Catch 22 trap.
The fact that a couple of them are also "Rapture" obsessed religious bigots means that
the principle of separation of church and state does no matter when MIC interests are
involved.
The health of MIC requires maintaining an inflated defense budget at all costs. Which,
in turn, drives foreign wars and the drive to capture other nations' resources to
compensate for MIC appetite. The drive which is of course closely allied with Wall Street
interests (disaster capitalism.)
In such conditions fake "imminent threat" assassinations necessarily start happening.
Although the personality of Pompeo and the fact that he is a big friend of the current
head of Mossad probably played some role.
It's really funny that Trump (probably with the help of his "reference group," which
includes Adelson and Kushner), managed to appoint as the top US diplomat a person who was
trained as a mechanic engineer and specialized as a tank repair mechanic. And who was a
long-time military contractor. So it is quite natural that he represents interests of
MIC.
IMHO under Trump/Pompeo/Esper trio some kind of additional skirmishes with Iran are a
real possibility: they are necessary to maintain the current inflated level of defense
spending.
State of the US infrastructure, the actual level of unemployment (U6 is ~7% which some
neolibs call full employment ;-), and the level of poverty of the bottom 33% of the USA
population be damned. Essentially the bottom 33% is the third world country within the
USA.
"If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee
working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans
The 894 people that earn more than $20 million make more than 99.99989% of
Americans, and are compensated a cumulative $37,009,979,568 per year. "
The fact that the plane was brought down because of the conflict initiated by Trump makes
everything about it very suspicious. Just because Iran states that it is responsible does not
disqualify the possibility that they were not made to make this mistake. We do not know the
facts as to what the Iranian defense system saw as that Ukrainian plane was flying.
I continue to be highly suspicious of the fact that it is a Ukrainian plane. Ukraine is
firmly in the Anglo-Zionist camp, period. Zelensky or not the deal was sealed when V. Nuland
finished her work in Kiev. The only reason Ukraine made a deal with Russia is because it is
in financial trouble and needs revenue. The West will not keep it afloat. So thinking that
suddenly it is conducting its own foreign policy is incorrect.
As an aside. Does a sovereign country bring in a man like this to help it run its country
?
Mikheil Saakashvili - born 21 December 1967) is a Georgian and Ukrainian politician.[7][8]
He was the third President of Georgia for two consecutive terms from 25 January 2004 to 17
November 2013. From May 2015 until November 2016, Saakashvili was the Governor of Ukraine's
Odessa Oblast.[1][9][10] He is the founder and former chairman of the United National
Movement party.
How about this one,
Natalie Ann Jaresko is an American-born Ukrainian investment banker who served as Ukraine's
Minister of Finance from December 2014 until April 2016.[1] In 20 March 2017, she was
appointed as executive director of the Financial Oversight & Management Board for
Puerto Rico.
or this one,
Aivaras Abromavičius is a Lithuanian-born Ukrainian investment banker and politician.
On 31 August 2019 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appointed Abromavičius the
Director General of Ukroboronprom.[1] Previously he was Ukraine's Minister of Economy and
Trade starting in December 2014 (Abromavičius announced his resignation on 3 February
2016). He did not retain his post in the Groysman Government that was installed in 14 April
2016.[2]
Ukraine is a Captured State.
Thus the possibility exists that that plane may have had some equipment placed in it in
Kiev that could trick the Iranian Defense system to think a craft is a danger to it. Kiev
would have been a safe place to do it (reasons above). If this were true does anyone here
believe that announcing this fact Public opinion would believe it ? I for one don't. Russia
knows how that worked out with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17). No matter what Iran would
have said that would have been spun in the West as attempting to blame someone else. Thanks
to this all attention in the Media would have been on Iran which Trump would have loved.
Again, Russia knows how this was played out in Malaysia MH17 case. The average CNN viewer in
that case would not see how the BUKA Russian was being used as evidence that it was Russia
that shot the plane down.
Iran did the right thing in admitted that it was responsible whether it was their fault
or not. There was simply no way to win in the case of having being fooled into
shooting the plane down.
The FAA banned flights of commercial airplanes over Tehran 2 hours before the plane came
down. Note, over Tehran, not over Iran. That's quite specific. Communication was lost when
the officer had to make a decision. Communication jamming is part of modern warfare. Maybe
this is a thwarted attempt by the US at a "disproportionate response" to Iranian strikes.
Maybe this is why Trump is not that excited and had to take drugs before performing his Iran
speech.
Iran deserves respect, if only because it openly and honestly admitted its responsibility for
what happened. This shows the maturity and courage of the political and military leadership
of this country.
It is clear that the plane was shot down unintentionally. It is also obvious that Iran was
provoked by the actions of the United States.
This is called life. That happens. And not only that. Human factor. We cannot avoid this
and 100% eliminate all risks.
In 1914, an idiot killed a monarch, which led to a large-scale war and the death of
millions of people. Human factor. Soldiers accidentally make the wrong buttons. Workers at an
oil factory smoke in the wrong place, resulting in huge fires. People do not notice an
extinct burner on a gas stove, resulting in an explosion, collapse of the house and death of
people. Vacationers tourists did not extinguish after themselves a fire in the forest, as a
result of which a giant fire covers thousands of hectares of territory. During the invasion
of Iraq in 2003, American Patriot systems destroyed a friendly British Tornado fighter bomber
(in addition to the destroyed American fighters). In February 2017, the Russian Aerospace
Forces mistakenly attacked the Turkish military in northern Syria. In 2001, Ukrainian air
defense, conducting military exercises, shot down a Russian passenger plane TU-154 over the
Black Sea, 78 people died. So on and so on... The technique and equipment is imperfect.
People all the more.
The Iranian situation is very similar to what happened in September 2018. Syrian air
defense shot down a Russian military plane, provoked by deliberate actions by Israeli
aviation. Just to remind that the Russian side has made it clear who is the true culprit of
the tragedy. In the case of Iran, the same thing. It is one thing if the plane crashes as a
result of a pilot error or a technical malfunction. But when it is now clear that plane was
shot down, and the Iranian air defense acted as it was provoked by the actions of the United
States, then the guilt of the United States only increases.
Iran bears very little, if any responsibility in this matter.
The United States is entirely to blame-what has occurred is exactly what the
US government was aiming at. It has created an atmosphere of fear and panic
in the knowledge that it would create chaos-that normal government would break down
and mistakes be made.
The US plays with the lives of people. It plays God, a God dedicated to the principle of pure
evil.
It plays with people's lives, the lives of the 'ants' that Harry Lime saw from above
Vienna,
as a matter of course. In Gaza children with cancer cannot get treatment because the US and
Israel
want to make life harder for their parents. The evil objective is to madden the people to the
point
that they will rise up and kill those who oppose the Occupation. In Colombia, Bolivia,
Honduras, Ecuador
and Brazil-even as we speak Death Squads-trained armed and financed-by the US and Israel
stalk those
who want to reform their society. In Venezuela the supply of food and medicine is interrupted
as far as
the power of the US and its allies extends.
Around the world where there are evil deeds being carried out, where children are starving,
medicines are
withheld, protesters are being assassinated and militias are terrorising the population-the
hands of the
United States and its allies are always evident. It was they who imported tens of thousands
of wahhabis
into Afghanistan, Russia, China and the battlegrounds that we all know in order to kill,
frighten and impoverish
the people. The people of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Lebanon and far beyond- all of
them have seen their
living standards diminished, their security removed their hopes of happiness systematically
thwarted.
In order, evil order, to punish them, not for anything that they have done but in the hope
that they will
surrender themselves to the United States and its agents, submit.
The truth is that human history has never seen a regime like that now ruling the United
States and attempting
to rule the world. Nothing compares with it, the Nazis were simply malicious pygmies in
comparison.
Many people from Trudeau to posters here refuse to admit what is crystal clear and what
history will
confirm: all the deaths that come, daily, weekly, yearly from this assumption by the United
States of
prerogatives, religion reserves for God; all the deaths that come from this juvenile playing
with the lives of
ordinary people are entirely the choice of the US government.
Trudeau bears more responsibility for the deaths of these airline passengers than anyone in
Iran. It was his choice to
keep the Embassy doors closed, to withdraw diplomatic representation and to join the US in
its sanctions
against the Iranian people. He has made the same choice in Venezuela, where similar accidents
may occur (have occurred
as in the sabotage of the power grid). People died then, people die daily and they do so
because of choices made by
governments playing with the lives of the people.
Everyone of the victims would be alive today had not the mafia in Washington decided to smash
up their society.
And they would almost certainly have been alive still had Trudeau and Freeland-and the four
parties in Ottawa- done
, what most Canadians want them to do and disassociate themselves and Canada from the evil
games Washington plays.
I hope that no Iranian is tricked into surrendering to evil. I hope that the tone of the
Revolutionary Guards-one
of sincere regret and manly apology- does not inform their future moves which must be to
re-double their commitment
to the defence of their country and the defeat of the most evil government the world has ever
seen.
Re: Trudeau's escalating attempts at scene-stealing
The odious, opportunistic popinjay Trudeau seems to have calculated that it's time for him
to upgrade his "brand" from "dashing young Bonnie Prince Justin" to "Mature Statesman with
Gravitas".
Thus, his predilection for elbowing his way to the head of the Western Hegemony Official
Spokesperson line and bumptiously blowing off his big bazoo.
The new beard is a "tell"; some men, especially handsome but "baby-faced" men, are
susceptible to an abiding adolescent impulse to grow facial hair in order to appear more
mature. It can't be a coincidence that Trudeau's beard correlates with his increased penchant
for making (fatuous) bold and aggressive pronouncements on geopolitical crises.
I know that Trudeau has a pedigree that nominally puts him in the top drawer of Canada's
political aristocracy. Still, he reminds me a lot of the Venezuelan golpista
boy-toy Juan "Random Guy" Guaidó.
Prometheus - Thank you for your information. I previously thought the transponder signal
would identify the plane as a civilian aircraft but one question remains for me: even without
IFF would the airtraffic control not (verify the identity)and be in contact with the pilot
when the course is changed? Is there no coordination between civlian and military
air-control? (especially in such a tense situation)
(the Ukrainain plane turned around - why?)
Still ...despite the admission it is strange that an aviation expert like Peter Haisenko
(retired Lufthansa pilot with special technical knowledge who knows Tehran airport well) came
to a very different conclusion: (excerpt from German Original - my translation)
Weil mittlerweile bekannt ist, dass die Boeing nach dem ersten Aufprall noch etwa 500 Meter
über den Boden geschrammt ist, darf man davon ausgehen, dass sie in flachem Winkel den
Boden berührt hat, etwa wie bei einer Landung. Sie ist also nicht „ungespitzt"
in den Boden gerammt.
Since it is now known the Boing grazed the ground for about 500 metres after impact it is
reasonable to assume that she touched the ground at a flat-angle, like in a regular landing.
[...]
Das deutet wiederum darauf hin, dass sich die Piloten in ihrer Notlage gar nicht bewusst
waren, wie nahe sie dem Boden bereits sind und völlig unerwartet Bodenkontakt hatten.
[...]
This is an indication that the Pilots were not aware of their emergency (how close to the
ground they were) and unexpectedly touched the ground. [...]
Fest steht wohl, dass die ukrainische Boeing nach dem Start einen Motorschaden hatte. Und
zwar einen soliden, mit Feuer und Totalausfall.
It appears to be certain that the Ukrainian Boeing suffered an engine breakdown after
take-off, a severe one with fire and total failure.
Zunächst stelle ich fest, dass es nahezu unmöglich ist, ein Passagierflugzeug in
dieser Flugphase abzuschießen. Man müsste schon jemanden mit einer kleinen
Boden-Luft-Rakete im erwarteten Abflugkorridor platzieren, der dann dem abfliegenden Jet
die Rakete hinterher schießt. Dieses hitzesuchende Projektil könnte dann einen
Motor treffen, was aber kein zwingender Grund für einen Absturz ist. Mit einem Motor
kann das Flugzeug weiter fliegen, wenn die Rahmenumstände entsprechend aller
Vorschriften gesetzt worden sind. Eine größere, aufwendigere
Flugabwehreinrichtung scheidet für diese Flugphase und den Ort aus. Nicht nur wegen
der geringen Höhe über Grund, sondern auch, weil es solche Anlagen in dieser
Gegend nicht gibt. Wenn, dann befinden sie sich im weiteren Umkreis, um Angriffe aus
größerer Höhe weit vor der Stadt abzuwehren. Warum ist es dann
überhaupt zu dem Absturz gekommen?
Haisenko asserts that " it is nearly impossible to shoot down a passenger plane in this
phase of the flight. In order to do that you'd need to place a (sort of) MANPAD in the
expected flight-corridor and the heat-seaking missile could then destroy one of the
engines.But this does not automatically lead to the crashing of the plane since it is able
to fly with one engine [...] A bigger anti-aircraft system is not suitable for this phase
of the flight ... these systems aim to intercept (destroy) targets flying at much higher
altitutes and farther away from the cities ... So why did the crash happen?
Obviously he wrote that before the Iranian admission was published and with limited
knowledge but still one wonders if electronic warfare played a role and certain parties
wanted that plane to crash ... (at least a closer look at the passenger list seems
advisable)
That is one of the best posts I have ever read and I have read more than a few.
Never a truer word.
If it needed a precis.......
Madeleine Albright.
The deaths of of 500,000 Iraqi children is a price worth paying.
This from a woman who had played a leading role in the destruction of Yugoslavia and the
handing of the Serbian province of Kosovo to the KLA a forerunner of Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Today a narco criminal islamic state - and a base for the bloodletting and birthing of the
European Caliphate.
And unlimited proxies for the USA War Of!! Terror across the Middle East.
Pure evil.
Sadly due to their own incompetence, Iran lost there moral high ground!
A great disappointment to those of us who supported Iran through thick and thin.
The FAA banned flights of commercial airplanes over Tehran 2 hours before the plane came
down. Note, over Tehran, not over Iran. That's quite specific. Communication was lost when
the officer had to make a decision. Communication jamming is part of modern warfare. Maybe
this is a thwarted attempt by the US at a "disproportionate response" to Iranian strikes.
Maybe this is why Trump is not that excited and had to take drugs before performing his Iran
speech.
Adding:
This would also explain why this is the first time the US did not respond to a state
attacking US institutions/military bases. The Us, in fact, did respond: "Let this serve as a
WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian
sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very
high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran
itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"
we have (!) targeted (that must mean there were plans for imminent actions in place, it's
not saying "we will target") Iranian sites, some at a very high level (!), very fast (!) and
very hard.
Their response went horribly wrong. Maybe a US drone was found. Maybe the US jammed
communication systems. It's all speculation but it could be that the US response is the cause
for the shooting down of the plane. It is a mystery to me why the airport was not closed down
that night, esp. in view of the FAA warning that specifically addresses Tehran. The Iranian
civil flights authority should have known about this, or is information of this kind
proprietary, i.e. not shared across countries/systems? The FAA is a lead aviation agency,
it's not as if the aviation agency of Tristan da Cunha had issued such a ban.
The FAA banning US aircraft flying over Tehran after Iran had struck the bases - my gut
tells me the US had planned and were executing a response involving a target in Tehran which
resulted in the plane being targeted by Iranian air defense systems... the jamming of
communication systems (which would have been part of the US response) would be the direct
cause for the plane being targeted. If this is true the US has this blood on their hands, not
Iran. Again, that's why Trump was clearly under the influence of some drugs. Because that
blood is on his hands, or rather, his big mouth and big ego.
...
"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we
have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many
years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and
those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD."
How would the passenger plane have been accidentally targeted?
That is less clear, but is one of the challenges facing any missile operator. While
military aircraft will plot course to avoid radar, civilian airliners are equipped with
transponders that identify the craft and their flight path set and share it with military
bases in the area.
Theoretically, the Ukrainian Boeing 737-800 should have been identified as a civilian
craft on any radar. But if the Western assessment is true, this incident will join other
tragic incidents of civilian planes being shot down by anti-aircraft weaponry.
In 2014, Malaysia Airline Flight 17 was suspected to have been inadvertently shot down
by Russian missiles, though Moscow has consistently denied any involvement. And in 1988, a
US warship engaging with Iranian gunboats in the Persian Gulf, the USS Vincennes, shot down
an Iranian passenger plane after mistaking it for a jet fighter, killing all 290 people on
board.
They have a nice map of Iran's rocket range. The map explains the Russian attitude towards
Iran which is complex. Iran's rockets do NOT reach the USA but they reach the whole of the
Middle East and a large part of Russia.
To all the smart asses:Yes Iran should have closed the airport but other have some
responsibility too. The Ukraine for example. Allowing planes to fly in to what is practically
a war zone. Not that thei have done it before..
The aircraft was hit when it had turned directly towards the Tor unit, at that point a
turn of nearly ninety degrees which I take it was located at the military site.
"Iranian air defense units have taken inappropriate actions dozens of times, including
firing antiaircraft artillery and scrambling aircraft against unidentified or misidentified
targets," noted a heavily classified Pentagon intelligence report, which added that the
Iranian military's communications were so inadequate and its training deficiencies so
significant that "misidentification of aircraft will continue."
The Ukraine plane was the target and the operation was successfull.
this was the only way US could strike Iran without Iran striking US bases throughout the
regin plus Israel.
When Trump threatened strikes against 52 cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the killing of
Soleimani, Iran said Isreal would also be hit (it has been noticeable US and Isreal have
beeing trying pass of US as threatening Iran as indipendent of Isreal).
This is when the Trump admin and Israel would have settled on the takedown of a civian
craftby Iran air defence. This makes Iran look fools in the eyes of fools as has occurred
here and not the highly professional force they truly are.
Iranians have gathered in the streets of Tehran to demand the resignation of Ayatollah
Seyed Ali Khamenei after the regime admitted it had mistakenly shot down a civilian
passenger plane.
Angry crowds gathered on Saturday night in at least four locations in Tehran, chanting
'death to liars' and calling for the country's supreme leader to step down over the tragic
military blunder, video from the scene shows.
What began as mournful vigils for Iranian lives lost on the flight soon turned to
outrage and protest against the regime, and riot police quickly cracked down, firing tear
gas into the crowd.
'Death to the Islamic Republic' protesters chanted, as the regime's security forces
allegedly used ambulances to sneak heavily armed paramilitary police into the middle of
crowds to disperse the demonstration.
I don't blame the Iranians protesting the unnecessary deaths of their compatriots through
sheer incompetence and lack of coordination among civil and military officials. They clearly
should have grounded all commercial flights. Their air defense units should have at least the
basic ability to discern between a commercial jet and military aircraft & missiles. If
they are this incompetent or their systems are so poor how do they expect to withstand the
onslaught of an air attack by the US that would include thousands of missiles and thousands
of sorties a day! Tehran will be flattened.
We agree that there was a US response, and that the plane was involved in this response.
You think it was the idea from the beginning to trick Iranian air defense into shooting this
particular plane down, I think there was a different target and things did not go according
to plan, while the plane played a role. Both of us are speculating. You think the operation
was successful, I say no, things went wrong. The US could not continue with their operation
as this would have made it obvious they had utilized the plane in some way. It's different
from the incident where Syria shot down a Russian military plane when Israeli jets used it as
cover - this here was a civilian plane. So, speculation from my side.
It's also to be observed that 146 people on the plane were Iranian citizens; this could
speak for your theory as this is a problem for the government of Iran (protests)
("One-hundred forty-six victims held Iranian passport, ten Afghan, five Canadian, four Swede
and two Ukrainian. All nine crew members consisting of three cockpit crew and six cabin crew
were Ukrainian. Note: A number of victims could have had multiple nationalities, so other
news reports might introduce them with different nationalities than the ones in this report.
The above list concerns the passport with which they left the Islamic Republic of Iran air
border.")
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Iran-CAO-PS752-Initial-Report.pdf
I have no means to know. I am sure, though, that the big mouthed announcement of Trump is
real. There was a response. I hope the dams won't hold for this one.
Various MSM have stories of victims. The British and Canadian victims I saw in these
articles all had Iranian names. Students expats ect returning to Iran for a visit.
One couple to get married in Iran.
Seemed to be a large number of university students including a couple of professors.
Regarding the FAA NOTAMS restricting airspace a list is provided
here . It is not accurate to claim only Tehran was restricted:
KICZ A0001/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLIGHT PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN
FLIGHTS IN THE BAGHDAD FLIGHT INFORMATON REGION (FIR)
(ORBB) - 07 JAN 23:45 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 07 JAN 23:49 2020
KICZ A0002/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLIGHT PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN
FLIGHTS IN THE TEHRAN FLIGHT INFORMATON REGION (FIR) (OIIX) - 08 JAN 00:10 2020 UNTIL PERM.
CREATED: 08 JAN 00:07 2020
Notice these cover national airspace, it is not limited to the cities they refer to. The
timezones are UTC.
Well Israel and neocons sure have a good laugh how well it turned out for them past week. Not
sure how Iran will be able to get back from this anytime soon, now being attacked both from
abroad and internally. Not to mention the collaboration between protesters and the west.
This site and its comments have been an unfortunate repository of ridiculous, reflexive
anti-American nonsense over the past few weeks. The speculation about the flight, and
inability to accept Iranian responsibility, was one of the more silly charades.
Posted by: Daniel Lennon | Jan 11 2020 16:46 utc | 185
I would add anti-Semitic too....
In my own country can't criticise Mossad actions on the news.. it would be anti-Semitic
too...
So here what came from a Forbes article that helped uncover a huge Mossad Operation
targeting Cyprus Larnaka airport (their Cypriot allies)
The 2 "ex" agents identified is only probably the tip of the proverbial iceberg...
9.5 million smart phones it is estimated were hacked by the Mossad Stingray like tech
discuised as plain ambulances alone in Larnaka air port during the time of the operation.
This is looking to be a very complex operation the US and five eyes is pulling off. Rather
than simply reacting to events after the killing of Soleimani, the killing was inteded to set
up circumstances to induce Iran into firing at a civilian aircraft. The act of war in killing
the Iranian military official and diplomat followed by threats against Iranian cultural
sites. With Iran air dfences on high alert, all it required was to cut air defence coms and
turn an aircraft at the same time. Once that is aclomplashed, making Iran look incompetent in
the eyes of the world it is straight into the pre-organised regime change operation.
I hope Russia and China will be giving Iran a bit of an assist in this because they are
facing a very dangerous moment. Anything can happen now that US thinks it has Iran on the
backfoot. And I think Iran is on the backfoot at the moment. What has happened has shocked
them. Zarif and others, saying the plane definitely was not shot down and then realising they
were wrong.
Very dangerous period for Iran as US will now press its attack harder, and perhaps in more
unexpected ways. Hopefully the crew that fired will not be punished because of this. If they
are, air defense crew will be hesitant to make decisions anytime their coms are cut.
The IRGC said they had asked for all flights to be grounded but the request was not acted on.
This is the area hopefully the Iranian investigation will focus on.
VK "Right after the assassination of Soleimani, Pompeo went publicly and said Iran was "one
step closer to regime change""
The Assassination was the first step. Trump threats against Iran cultural sites the second
step. Iran retaliation against the US bases the third step. Downing the civilian aircraft
step four. And guess what... regime change operation kicks into gear.
But for Trump's murder of Soleimani, the Iranians would not have been so jumpy.
Trump's murder of Soleimani, was a significant factor in making the Iranians jumpy.
These deaths go on Trump's death count card along with all the dead in Syria.
In Iraq The U.S. Is Again An Occupation Force As It Rejects To Leave As Demanded
Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi is following
Iraq's Parliament decision to remove all foreign forces from Iraq. But his request for
talks with the U.S. about the U.S. withdrawal process was answered with a big "F*** You":
Iraq's caretaker prime minister asked Washington to start working out a road map for an
American troop withdrawal, but the U.S. State Department on Friday bluntly rejected the
request, saying the two sides should instead talk about how to "recommit" to their
partnership.
Thousands of anti-government protesters gathered in the capital and southern Iraq, many
calling on both Iran and America to leave Iraq, reflecting anger and frustration over the two
rivals -- both Baghdad's allies -- trading blows on Iraqi soil.
The request from Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi pointed to his determination to push
ahead with demands for U.S. troops to leave Iraq, stoked by the American drone strike on Jan.
3 that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. In a phone call Thursday night, he told U.S.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that recent U.S. strikes in Iraq were an unacceptable breach
of Iraqi sovereignty and a violation of their security agreements, his office said.
He asked Pompeo to "send delegates to Iraq to prepare a mechanism" to carry out the Iraqi
Parliament's resolution on withdrawing foreign troops, according to the statement.
"The prime minister said American forces had entered Iraq and drones are flying in its
airspace without permission from Iraqi authorities, and this was a violation of the bilateral
agreements," the statement added.
The Associated Press errs when it says that the move was "stoked by the American drone
strike on Jan. 3 that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani". The move was stoked five days
earlier when the U.S.
killed 31 Iraqi security forces near the Syrian border despite the demands by the Iraqi
prime minister and president not to do so. It was further stoked when the U.S.
assassinated Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes , the deputy commander of the Popular Militia Forces and
a national hero in Iraq.
The State Department issued a rather aggressive response to
Abdul-Mahdi's request:
When
the United States, the United Kingdom, and the "coalition of the willing" attacked Iraq in
March 2003, millions protested around the world. But the war of "shock and awe" was just the
beginning. The subsequent occupation of Iraq by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority
bankrupted the country and left its infrastructure in shambles.
It's not just a question of security. Although the breathtaking violence that attended
Iraq's descent into sectarian nightmare has been well documented in many retrospectives on the
10-year-old war, what's often overlooked is that by far more mundane standards, the United
States did a spectacularly poor job of governing Iraq.
It's not that Iraq was flourishing before the occupation. From 1990 to 2003, the UN Security
Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that were the harshest in the history of global
governance. But along with the sanctions, at least, came an elaborate system of oversight and
accountability that drew in the Security Council, nine UN agencies, and General Secretary
himself.
The system was certainly imperfect, and the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people
were devastating. But when the United States arrived, all semblance of international oversight
vanished.
Under enormous pressure from Washington, in May 2003 the Security Council formally
recognized the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Resolution
1483. Among other things, this resolution gave the CPA complete control over all of Iraq's
assets.
At the same time, the Council removed all the forms of monitoring and accountability that
had been in place: there would be no reports on the humanitarian situation by UN agencies, and
there would be no committee of the Security Council charged with monitoring the occupation.
There would be a limited audit of funds, after they were spent, but no one from the UN would
directly oversee oil sales. And no humanitarian agencies would ensure that Iraqi funds were
being spent in ways that benefitted the country.
Humanitarian concerns
In January 2003, the UN prepared a working plan anticipating the impact of
a possible war. Even with only "medium impact" from the invasion, the UN expected that
humanitarian conditions would be severely compromised.
Because the Iraqi population was so heavily reliant on the government's food distribution
system (a consequence of international sanctions), the UN anticipated that overthrowing the
Iraqi regime would also undermine food security. And because the population already suffered
from extensive malnutrition, this disruption would be quite lethal, putting 30 percent of Iraqi
children under five at risk of death. The UN noted that if water and sewage treatment plants
were damaged in the war, or if the electrical system could not operate, Iraqis would lose
access to potable water, which would likely precipitate epidemics of water-borne diseases. And
if electricity, transportation, and medical equipment were compromised, then the medical system
would be unable to respond effectively to these epidemics.
During the occupation, much of this came to pass. A
June 2003 UN report noted that the postwar water and sewage systems for Baghdad and other
central and southern governorates were "in crisis." In Baghdad alone, the report estimated that
40 percent of the city's water distribution network was damaged, leading to a loss of up to
half of the city's potable water through leaks and breaks in the system. And direr still, the
UN reported that neither of Baghdad's two sewage treatment plants was functional, leading to a
massive discharge of raw sewage into the Tigris River.
The food situation was similar. The UN found that farming had collapsed due to "widespread
insecurity and looting, the complete collapse of ministries and state agencies -- the sole
providers of essential farming inputs and services -- together with significant damages to
power supplies."
Likewise, the health system deteriorated dramatically. Less than 50 percent of the Iraqi
population had access to medical care, due in part to the dangers associated with travel.
Additionally, the report estimated that 75 percent of all health-care institutions were
affected by the looting and chaos that occurred in the aftermath of the war. As of June 2003,
the health system as a whole was functioning at 30-50 percent of its pre-war capacity. The
impact was immediate. By early summer, acute malnutrition rates had doubled, dysentery was
widespread, and little medical care was available. In August, when a power outage blacked out
New York, the joke going around Baghdad was "I hope they're not waiting for the Americans to
fix it."
The CPA gave responsibility for humanitarian relief to the U.S. military -- not to agencies
with experience in humanitarian crises -- and marginalized the UN's humanitarian relief
agencies. Over the 14-month course of the CPA's administration, the humanitarian crisis
worsened. Preventable diseases like dysentery and typhoid ran rampant. Malnutrition worsened,
claiming the lives of ever more infants, mothers, and young children. All told, there was an
estimated 100,000
"excess deaths" during the invasion and occupation -- well above and beyond the mortality rate
under Saddam Hussein, even under international sanctions.
The CPA's priorities were clear. After the invasion, during the widespread looting and
robbery, occupation authorities did little to protect water and sewage treatment plants, or
even pediatric hospitals. By contrast, they provided immediate protection for the oil ministry
offices, hired a U.S. company to put out oil field fires, and immediately provided protection
for the oil fields as well.
Corruption
In addition, the U.S.-led CPA was deeply corrupt. Much of Iraq's revenues, from oil sales or
other sources, went to contracts with U.S. companies. Of contracts for more than $5 million, 74
percent went to U.S. companies, with most of the remainder going to U.S. allies. Only 2 percent
went to Iraqi companies.
Over the course of the occupation, huge amounts of money simply disappeared. Kellogg, Brown,
and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton, received over 60 percent of all contracts paid for
with Iraqi funds, although it was repeatedly criticized by auditors for issues of honesty and
competence. In the last six weeks of the occupation, the United States shipped $5 billion of
Iraqi funds, in cash, into the country, to be spent before the Iraqi-led government took over.
Auditor reports indicated that Iraqi funds were systematically looted by the CPA officials:
"One contractor received a $2 million payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped
bundles of currency," read one
report . "One official was given $6.75 million in cash, and was ordered to spend it one
week before the interim Iraqi government took control of Iraqi funds."
U.S. officials were apparently unconcerned about the gross abuses of the funds with which
they were entrusted. In one instance, the CPA transferred some $8.8 billion of Iraqi money
without any documentation as to how the funds were spent. When questioned about how the money
was spent, Admiral David Oliver, the principal deputy for financial matters in the CPA,
replied
that he had "no idea" and didn't think it was particularly important. "Billions of dollars of
their money?" he asked his interlocutor. "What difference does it make?"
In the end, none of this should be terribly surprising -- the corruption, the indifference
to human needs, the singular concern with controlling Iraq's oil wealth. It was obvious from
the moment that the Security Council, under enormous pressure from the United State, passed
Resolution 1483.
By systematically removing nearly every form of oversight from their self-imposed
administration of Iraq, the United States and its allies laid the foundation for the looting of
an entire nation's wealth, abetted by their own wanton indifference to the needs and rights of
Iraqis. Ten years after the start of the war, the CPA's disastrous governance of Iraq stands
alongside the country's horrifying descent into violence as a dark legacy in its own right.
The folks who hatched that particular impeachment plan and pitched it to Nancy Pelosi must have been the same idiots in the DNC
who dreamt up the Russiagate scandal and also pursued Paul Manafort to get him off DJT's election campaign team. Dmitri Alperovich /
Crowdstrike, Alexandra Chalupa: we're looking at you.
The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote and announce that he has
instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
Notable quotes:
"... At least this mess made it patently clear the Dem obsession with Russia has been all about preserving their Ukraine pickpocketing operation. ..."
I ordered a truckload of pop corn to snack on during the trial in the Senate. Just imagine Joe Biden under cross examination as
he flips 'n flops! "Was that me in the Video, I can't recall."
I can see a Trump marketing consultant designing a campaign centered on the impeachment hearings called "The Swamp Strikes
Back". It might be most effective as a comic strip.
When people thought in 2016 that they are winning against the National Security state, they
were deceived by the candidate who sounded rational during election campaign, but then became
Hillary II in three months after inauguration and brought Bush II neocons into his
Administration.
So voters were deceived with Clinton, deceived with Bush II, deceived with Obama, deceived
with Trump. You now see the tendency...
With all that is happening in the U.S right now I can't help but think that it's past time
for the people to reassert their power over the National security state, as unrealistic as
that might sound.
The Anti war movement is ideologically divided between progressives and
libertarian/paleoconservatives, so a political party would not likely be the answer.
Instead perhaps we should consider a grassroots movement to amend the constitution to
guarantee U.S neutrality in world affairs (banning both the arming or financing of foreign
belligerents) and to ban the Federal government from having a standing military force except
in times of actual war. I don't know what chance either would have of actually being passed,
but it might at least force a debate on these issues in a way that might resonate better with
the average American. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Peace and Solidarity
"... Shorter Pompeo: "Our troops will stay and you better do what we say." A foreign force that is asked to leave a country and does not do so is an occupation force. It must and will be opposed. ..."
"... The murder of the 31 security forces and the assassination of al-Mahandes have still not been avenged. The PMU will do their moral duty and fight the foreign occupation forces until they leave. ..."
"... After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I still refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event I did not cooperate and do as he asked ..."
"... Iraq is again negotiating with Russia to acquire S-300 air defense systems. It will need them as the U.S. will have to leave and leave it will. The only choice for its soldiers is between leaving horizontally or vertically, dead or alive. ..."
"... In 2006 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice famously celebrated Israel's assault on Lebanon as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." The child she dreamed of was never born. Israel lost that war against Hizbullah and the Resistance Axis has been winning ever since while the U.S. has lost again and again. It is time for the U.S. to end that useless engagement and to withdraw from the Middle East. ..."
Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi is following
Iraq's Parliament decision to remove all foreign forces from Iraq. But his request for
talks with the U.S. about the U.S. withdrawal process was answered with a big "F*** You":
Iraq's caretaker prime minister asked Washington to start working out a road map for an
American troop withdrawal, but the U.S. State Department on Friday bluntly rejected the
request, saying the two sides should instead talk about how to "recommit" to their
partnership.
Thousands of anti-government protesters gathered in the capital and southern Iraq, many
calling on both Iran and America to leave Iraq, reflecting anger and frustration over the two
rivals -- both Baghdad's allies -- trading blows on Iraqi soil.
The request from Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi pointed to his determination to push
ahead with demands for U.S. troops to leave Iraq, stoked by the American drone strike on Jan.
3 that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. In a phone call Thursday night, he told U.S.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that recent U.S. strikes in Iraq were an unacceptable breach
of Iraqi sovereignty and a violation of their security agreements, his office said.
He asked Pompeo to "send delegates to Iraq to prepare a mechanism" to carry out the Iraqi
Parliament's resolution on withdrawing foreign troops, according to the statement.
"The prime minister said American forces had entered Iraq and drones are flying in its
airspace without permission from Iraqi authorities, and this was a violation of the bilateral
agreements," the statement added.
The Associated Press errs when it says that the move was "stoked by the American
drone strike on Jan. 3 that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani". The move was stoked five
days earlier when the U.S.
killed 31 Iraqi security forces near the Syrian border despite the demands by the Iraqi
prime minister and president not to do so. It was further stoked when the U.S.
assassinated Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes , the deputy commander of the Popular Militia Forces and
a national hero in Iraq.
The State Department issued a rather aggressive response to
Abdul-Mahdi's request:
America is a force for good in the Middle East. Our military presence in Iraq is to continue
the fight against ISIS and as the Secretary has said, we are committed to protecting
Americans, Iraqis, and our coalition partners. We have been unambiguous regarding how crucial
our D-ISIS mission is in Iraq. At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated
to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership -- not to discuss troop
withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East. Today, a NATO
delegation is at the State Department to discuss increasing NATO's role in Iraq, in line with
the President's desire for burden sharing in all of our collective defense efforts. There
does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just
regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership. We want to
be a friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq.
Shorter Pompeo: "Our troops will stay and you better do what we say." A foreign force that is asked to leave a country and does not do so is an occupation force.
It must and will be opposed.
The murder of the 31 security forces and the assassination of al-Mahandes have still not
been avenged. The PMU will do their moral duty and fight the foreign occupation forces until
they leave.
The demonstrators in Baghdad will not be able to prevent that from happening. It is
interesting, by the way, that the Washington Post bureau chief in Baghdad thought she
knew what they would demand even before they came together:
Louisa Loveluck @leloveluck - 9:48 UTC · Jan 10,
2020
Activists have called for fresh rallies in Baghdad's Tahrir Square today, and crowds expected
to build after midday prayers. The demonstrators are rejecting parliament's decision to
oppose a US troop presence, fearing repercussions that might follow.
A few hours later Loveluck had to admit that she was, as usual, wrong:
Louisa Loveluck @leloveluck - 11:13 UTC · Jan 10,
2020
"No to Iran, no to America" say signs and chants in Baghdad's Tahrir Square as crowds start
to swell. Protesters say they are fed up of their country being someone else's battlefield.
"We deserve to live in peace," says 21 year old Zahraa.
... Rejecting a narrow
parliamentary vote backed by Shiite political elites is not the same as openly supporting the
US. Chants in Tahrir today reject both the US and Iran.
The U.S. will need to pay better Iraqi 'activists' if it wants them to demand what Donald
Trump wishes.
After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I still
refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed, the
demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event I did not
cooperate and do as he asked
Iraq is again negotiating with
Russia to acquire S-300 air defense systems. It will need them as the U.S. will have to leave
and leave it will. The only choice for its soldiers is between leaving horizontally or
vertically, dead or alive.
The US President – who promised to end the "
endless wars " – killed the Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and the Iranian
Major General Qassem Soleimani believing he could win control of Iraq and achieve regime
change in Iran. On the brink of triggering a major war, Trump has spectacularly lost Iran and
is about to lose Iraq.
"
Beautiful military equipment doesn't rule the world, people rule the world, and the
people want the US out of the region",
said Iran Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif. President Trump doesn't have many people in the
Middle East on his side, not even among his allies, whose leaders have been repeatedly
insulted . Iran
could not have dreamt of a better President to rejuvenate its position domestically and
regionally. All Iran's allies are jubilant, standing behind the "Islamic Republic" that
fulfilled its promise to bomb the US. A "New Middle East" is about to be born; it will not be
"Made in the USA" but "Made in Iran". Let us hope warmongers' era is over. The time has come
to recognise and rely on intelligent diplomacy in world affairs.
In 2006 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice famously celebrated Israel's assault on
Lebanon as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." The child she dreamed of was never born.
Israel lost that war against Hizbullah and the Resistance Axis has been winning ever since
while the U.S. has lost again and again. It is time for the U.S. to end that useless engagement
and to withdraw from the Middle East.
Posted by b on January 10, 2020 at 19:09 UTC |
Permalink
The sheer arrogance and wilful blindness expressed in the US State
Department press statement and WaPo staffer Louisa Loveluck's tweets are astounding beyond
belief. It's as if the entire capital city of the US has become a mental asylum / Hotel
California, where one can enter but never leave spiritually and morally, though one can take
many physical trips in and out of the madhouse.
Iraq definitely does need the S-300 missile defence systems. The most pressing issue
though is whether the Iraqis will suffer the delays Syria suffered in acquiring those systems
even after paying for them. Time now is of the essence. Iraqi operators need to be trained in
those systems. Syria may be able to supply some training but at the risk of letting down its
guard in sending some of its operators to Baghdad and exposing them to US drone attacks.
Thanks b, for your continuing coverage and insights.
the u.s'. leadership believes it can do the same thing over, and over, and over with
different results. They will need a very long ladder with the upcoming repeat of Saigon
1975.
They have always underestimated the will and cultures of people they would make
subservient.
How is this working for the Iran Puppet Master:
Pompous one?
Here is the big mighty with world's powerful military; on their bended knees -
[.]The press release further noted that Washington seeks to be "a friend and partner to a
sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq", while stating that the US military presence in the
country will persist in order to fight Daesh* and protect Americans, Iraqis, and US-led
coalition partners.[.]
Yes, some friend and partner eh? Insults and thuggery. Exiting will be horizontal.
Go pound sand.
From the US State Dept's 'aggressive response' link,
"not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle
East. Today, a NATO delegation is at the State Department to discuss increasing NATO's role
in Iraq, in line with the President's desire for burden sharing in all of our collective
defense efforts. "
"BUT OUR RIGHT" ??
...
"President's desire for burden sharing in all of our collective defense efforts."
And with such liars who needs a stick. Narrative changes depending the hour.
Last night: Pompeo told Foxnews-
Pompeo Says US Had No Information on Date, Place of Possible Attack Allegedly Planned
by Soleimani
LINK
US President Donald Trump earlier claimed that Washington had eliminated the top Iranian
military commander to halt Tehran's plans to blow up the US Embassy in Baghdad.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on a national broadcast that the United States
possessed no information about the date and place of an alleged attack planned by
assassinated General Qasem Soleimani.[.]
"We don't know precisely when - and we don't know precisely where. But it was real
...
US President Donald Trump in an interview with Fox News said that top Iranian commander
Qasem Soleimani was plotting attacks on four American embassies in the Middle East region
before being assassinated by US forces.
"I can reveal that I believe it probably would've been four embassies," Trump said when
asked whether large-scale attacks were planned against other embassies.
The House of Fools. Something is out of focus if they have to keep making justifications
for the killing.
Thanks for focus on the Iran front of the civilization war humanity is in. I find the Ukraine
plane crash to be distracting from the bigger picture.
The piece from the US State Department is quite the lie. Bottom line is that Iran is
currently sovereign but would cease to be so is they became the "normal" country that private
finance empire wants. Iran would then live under the dictatorship of global private finance
like the rest of us that mythically believe we are sovereign nations and individuals.
I am pleased to see that humanity is at this juncture in spite of the threat of
extinction. Our species is crippled by the cult that owns global private finance in the West
and even if this process seems quite indirect to me, at least the socialism/barbarism war is
being fought.
Good. Iran will star escalating (via proxy force, or maybe even directly if they are feeling
bold and determined) and US will start to have casualties. Being nice to bully never works.
Iraq, every parliament party, could start themselves showing they want the americans to
leave. They have not done this,
and this is the reason US give not to leave:
US is not willing to withdraw troops from Iraq, says Pompeo
The US argues that the Iraqi parliamentary vote was non-binding, and that its legitimacy
was undermined by neither Iraqi Kurds or Sunnis participating.
New Rome suffers the same maladies as the first. Uprisings in the Provinces.
Lest we forget, Rome's demands;
" "First, Iran must declare to the IAEA a full account of the prior military dimensions of
its nuclear program, and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity."
"Second, Iran must stop uranium enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing. This
includes closing its heavy water reactor."
"Third, Iran must also provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout
the entire country."
"Iran must end its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or
development of nuclear-capable missile systems."
"Iran must release all U.S. citizens, as well as citizens of our partners and allies, each
of them detained on spurious charges."
"Iran must end support to Middle East terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hizballah
[Hezbollah], Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."
"Iran must respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government and permit the disarming,
demobilization, and reintegration of Shia militias."
"Iran must also end its military support for the Houthi militia and work towards a
peaceful political settlement in Yemen."
"Iran must withdraw all forces under Iranian command throughout the entirety of
Syria."
"Iran, too, must end support for the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan and the
region, and cease harboring senior Al Qaida leaders."
"Iran, too, must end the IRG [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] Qods Force's [Quds
Force's] support for terrorists and militant partners around the world."
"And too, Iran must end its threatening behavior against its neighbors – many of
whom are U.S. allies. This certainly includes its threats to destroy Israel, and its firing
of missiles into Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It also includes threats to
international shipping and destructive – and destructive cyberattacks."
thanks b... i share jens view on how outrageous usa official words on this are...
"At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best
recommit to our strategic partnership -- not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right,
appropriate force posture in the Middle East." they just don't give a fuck... everyone here
knew that already... as a few of us have been saying - there is no way the usa is going to
leave.. they are intent up the same agenda they have been intent on for what seems like
forever...
@ 4 Likklemore quote - "Something is out of focus if they have to keep making
justifications for the killing." the liar in command saying he was going to cause trouble at
4 embassies.. jesus what a liar and retard trump is if he thinks anyone who has a brain would
believe that b.s.
@ 10 sammy... the sooner washington d.c. is glass the sooner americans can wake the fuck
up..
Who dares to stop them?
Surely no sane country wants to stand against JUSA.
Israel is shaking in its boots so its American poodle must stay to protect them. The
sooner the world gets rid of the Jewish infestation from their governments the safer the
world will be.
We will likely see a rebranding of USA troops to NATO
Some of their NATO vassals still care about the rule of law and international law. Mikey
and Donny might discover that these backward states are "not very helpful" to their cause of
rules based order.
USA runs a serious risk of overplaying its hand and alienating some of their european
allies. Likely not all, but almost certainly some. That would create a rift in NATO and
possibly the EU and compromise USA control over these organizations and their members.
Fernando Martinez@16 - You're misunderstanding the situation. The Iraqi parliament did get
the majority they needed to pass the resolution as specified in their constitution. They will
turn it over to the existing or new PM for implementation. Nothing wishy-washy about it. It's
a done deal despite the terrified Kurds and Sunnis not voting to save their own butts from
reprisal - either by Iraqi Shia or by the US. I would have done the same thing.
It is the US that is claiming the resolution is nonbinding (in their 'legal' opinion)
because the vote wasn't sufficiently representative (in the mind of the US dual-citizen
chickenhawk neocons) - despite the fact that two-thirds of Iraqis are Shia and there was more
than enough votes to pass the resolution despite the Sunni and Kurd representatives' absence.
The US is pouting and will hold its breath until the Iraqis defy their constitution and obey
the will of their American masters. In the meantime, the US has refused to recognize the vote
and will oppose any efforts for implementation by the Iraqi PM. Trump or Pompeo or one of
those idiots stated that clearly and unambiguously - the US has no plans to leave no matter
what.
I guess we'll see. Plan B for the US is probably to agitate for the original plan of
uprisings to partition Iraq into Kurd, Sunni and Shia statelets. The obedient Kurd and Shia
leaders will allow eternal US presence and as many bases as the US wants. It will be enough
territory to block the feared 'Shia Crescent' - the US will insist the Kurd and Sunni
statelets extend from Turkey down the Syrian border to Jordan, blocking any attempts to
connect the Shia statelet to Syria. That's the US plan B for this problem if they can't use
'other means' to stay in present-day Iraq for 'anti-ISIS' operations.
US was hitting Iraqi militias even back when ISIS still held territory and the militias where
driving ISIS back.
Then the recent strike on the militia's formally incorporated into Iraqi military and the
strike that killed the Iraqi and Iranian.... but then the Iraqi's declare Iran's strike on
the US base a breach of sovereignty. Iraqi's that should be allied with Iran for the purpose
of driving the US out. US will be in Iraq and the Syrian oilfields for quite some time.
There was the same talk about militia's and whatever hitting US in Syria but that hasn't
eventuated and I doubt any thing serious against US will happen in Iraq either. US will have
proxies out and about - using its bases as fire support bases with air and artillery to back
up its proxies.
The vote count I saw was unanimous. Clearly, the Evil Outlaw US Empire is throwing as much
bullshit at everything in the hopes that some sticks and clogs peoples's minds. The 737 crash
is similar in pointing over there instead of looking at what's just occurred at your feet.
Now Trump says four embassies were going to be attacked as he further demonstrates he's
losing his mind. Lies and Bluster are the hallmarks of a Paper Tiger.
Meanwhile, what stands for genuine Progressives and the Left are clearly gaining ground as
numerous Anti-war rallies took place yesterday and an article appeared in my local rag saying
the D-Party Establishment is afraid of a Sanders nomination--2016 in play all over again
except no HRC and we know more about the DNC's evilness in not at all being responsive to the
public or voting results. IMO, the Political Fight required for genuine change has finally
begun and will escalate.
Globally, the current battles are a new phase of a 3 millennial-long war between the
Current Oligarchy and the 99% as to who will be the Sovereign--the people collectively or
those who've stolen their wealth. Class War--You Bet! We now have definitive proof of how it
works and how long it's been ongoing. What we've yet to see is if the 99% have enough brains
and solidarity to undo 3,000+ years of Tyranny.
Within
this article is a photo of Iranian general Ali Amir Hajizadeh standing at a podium in
front of a phalanx of 9 flags belonging to the Axis of Resistance. We need to add our own
flags to that Alliance for the enemies of Iran are the enemies of all Earth's people and
employ the likes of sammy and other Terrorists to do their bidding.
The Iranians attacked by the US in this episode was always about Iraq being seen as moving
out of the American-Euro orbit and into the China-Iran-Russia orbit. So of course they will
not voluntarily leave, instead they will either be forced out by attacks or more likely they
will force either a change in leadership of Iraq or threaten the leadership or bribe the
leadership into accepting permanent occupation for "their safety" ala a Mob Protection
Racket. This is exposed here Pax
Americana: Between Iraq and A Hard Place
Couple of small points;
1) 32-35 soldiers (4-5 commanders and their command posts - US dixit) were killed in the
earlier US attacks, which were heavier in Syria and against the Herzbollah, than those
against Iraqian forces on the Syria-Iraqi border. The command posts were eliminated
very accurately. This is possibly because they had previously collectively stated that they
wanted to eliminate the terrorists in the Anbar desert. (Thought; those "terrorists" may have
included embedded "special forces" or mercenaries which the US wanted to protect.)
2) I believe that Iraq was trying to get the S400, (The one that can "see" F35's) rather than
the S300.
3) OT? Just who gets the profits from the Oil stolen from Syria, and would have a kickback
from the oil that was demanded from Iraq (Al-Mahdi statement)? Conventionally we attribute
the money going to the "Pentagon" or "CIA". But I seem to remember that the complete Erdogan
family was benefitting before they were kicked out. Is it possible that the Syrian oil is now
going straight into a slush fund for some Generals or members of the administration? Is that
really why the US doesn't want leave? Profits not geo-politics?
Well, we shall soon see what the Iraqis are made of and where their will lies. I expect
we'll begin getting that answer this weekend. It does appear Iraqi Patriots will need to drag
their fellows along with them, but IMO none will get a better future unless the Outlaw US
Empire is driven from Southwest Asia.
I expect some spineless eastern European countries (Romania, Poland, etc.) will lend
themselves for this. The other members will tacitly accept the NATO branding ...
the sooner Israhell, stripped to its 1948 boundaries, is glass we will have peace on
planet earth. Fighting Israhell's wars have daily cost in blood and treasure. In $ 7
trillions and counting.
Hmm. Why? running scared.
Reuters: but Russia denies. Russian navy ship 'aggressively approached' U.S. destroyer in Arabian Sea: U.S.
Navy
"DUBAI (Reuters) - A Russian navy ship "aggressively approached" a U.S. Navy destroyer in the
North Arabian Sea on Thursday, the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet said in a statement
on Friday.
[.]
"The Russian ship initially refused but ultimately altered course and the two ships opened
distance from one another," the statement said."
No one should cheer this. The people of the Middle East have been bleeding way too
long.
The million dollar question is: how tostop a serial killer on the loose, operating in plain
sight, when everyone else is either afraid, in a deal or trying to avoid blowing up the whole
place (world).
It's tough because the serial killer, (together with his partners in crime EU/NATO), have
dismantled the existing world order, however fragile it was. The law is no more.
You would expect that in a situation like this the nations of the world, through the UN,
would say - now you must leave Iraq because the Iraqi parliament has spoken. That's the only
way the weaker can enforce their decisions agains the stronger peacefully, with the support
of the global community. But that doesn't happen because the worst offenders, the serial
killers, are members of the UN Security Council. And, the UN General Assembly almost never
meets to discuss events crucial for world peace, justice, fairness and equality, such as
these.
When all hinges on force, chaos and blood are in store. It is absolutely immoral, unjust
and heinous that the people of Iraq, Iran Syria, Lebanon and others should again fight to
their death to set themselves free from the deadly claws of parasitic states that are
veto-holding members of the UN body entrusted with maintaining world peace, law and order!!!
This entire theatre of the absurd is unbearable and should be a call to action for every
single decent human being on this beautiful planet.
Magnier has a few comments on the Iraqi divides at his twitter thread and is exactly what
I have thought for the last month or so. Those Iraqi groups that are solidly allied with Iran
in the fight against ISIS and US are a small minority and US and Israel have been hitting
them with impunity for several years now. Most Iraqi's including Shia seem tied up in small
time domestic disputes. No Nasrallah's or Kharmenei's in Iraq. Only Muqtada al-Sadr types.
Perhaps Sistani may do something but he also seems very much small time domestic - not
interested or not capable in the big picture.
Yes, you're quite correct, there will be blood, just as there's been blood flowing for the
last 3,000 years. That's why I wrote our flags must join those of the Axis of
Resistance--this War isn't theirs alone; it's every Earthling's War whether they realize it
or not.
What if the government of Iraq asks Russia to assist it in safeguarding its airspace from
unauthorized entry? The Russians will bring the equipment and the operators & they are
already just across in Syria.
Thanks for your reply! The rhetorical counter to the non-Patriot Iraqis will be that the
Evil Outlaw US Empire intends to treat them just like the Zionists treat their Palestinian
slaves and have demonstrated so already. There are essentially three choices: Fight, help
others to fight, pack up and move to another nation as you're no longer an Iraqi.
"Just who gets the profits from the Oil stolen from Syria, "
Best estimates I've seen say the oil fields trump is so bent on denying the Assad
government from accessing are so damaged they produce 31,000 bpd at best. Whatever discount
price comes from that after it's trucked to some market in Turkey or maybe Iraq, it would be
less profitable than trump's Taj mahal casino venture.
But hey, he's the greatest business man ever. Just ask him?
It's not about profit, it's about making a dollar here and there to give to the Kurds and
keep their America is our friend dreams alive and denying Assad that oil.
It would cost a great deal of money to return the fields east of the Euphrates to their
previous production levels.
The Netanyahu plan is to deny the Syrian gov't and it's people the revenue from those
wells they used to access to pay for their needs. Only the needs of trump and his people
matter.
The current regime in the United States seems to believe that people are only able to believe
what the regime tells them to believe. This is not the case. Even the American people want
the US military to withdraw from Iraq, from Syria, from the Middle East.
This has been illustrated repeatedly. But, after every 'election', and after every 'poll',
the regime chews on the results and rolls it over until they come up with a 'storyline' that
says they can do whatever the hell they feel like anyway. More and more people are catching
on to this.
Elijah Magnier in a Tweet today seemed to imply that Al Mahdi didn't stand up to the US
forcefully enough and that there is a split between shia and Sunni as to US presence. Some
want the US to stay. He also said Iraq needs a stronger PM that will implement US kicking out
of Iraq. He also mentioned that Al Mahdi did not give the ok for PMU forces to go up against
US in Iraq.
We will have to see. But if the Iraqi people are demanding US is kicked out then Al Mahdi may
be forced to act.
As in virtual every representative democracy, the Iraqi government carries out the will of
the people as expressed through their representatives. So the vote by the Iraqi Parliament is
binding on the Iraqi government, not a foreign government .. duh!
AFAIK USA is in Iraq at invitation of the Iraqi government but there's no formal agreement
(aka SOFA). So the Iraqi government can ask USA to leave at any time.
Iraq was being nice and diplomatic to invite USA to provide input that helps the Iraqi
government determine the timetable for USA to leave. Since USA has refused, we should expect
the Iraqi government to demand that USA leave immediately.
Of course, USA has already stated their reasons for remaining despite any lawful demand
that they do so.
Thanks james. Give the u.s. uniformed boys and girls some slack. They are running scared,
having to look over their shoulders knowing they are targets and that now things have changed
- U.S. stands alone without friends. It's vassal states waiver. after Soleimani
killing suddenly, except for IL, the U.S. is alone . article from earlier comment posting
is a good read.
"'Power-driven vessel A approaches the port side of power-driven vessel B. Vessel A is
considered the give-way vessel. As the give-way vessel, A must take EARLY and SUBSTANTIAL
action to keep clear and avoid crossing the stand-on vessel B.'
Farragut (A) should have passed behind B."
As b notes, this is almost an exact repeat of what happened last year. The idiots
commenting on the USN's twitter thread are pathetic and clearly don't know squat.
And speaking of the Russian Navy, Putin's business today began with "a
meeting with the Defence Ministry leadership and the Russian Navy commanders to discuss the
key areas of short- and long-term development of the Navy. The meeting was held while the
Supreme Commander-in-Chief was visiting the Nakhimov Black Sea Naval Academy" after
observing/participating in the previous day's naval exercises on the Black Sea. Currently,
the USN is
rated as "weak and marginal" by the Heritage Institute, a patriotic think tank, which is
outwardly displayed by the lack of navigation skills.
And another thing...
Did anybody notice how the 'goodguy badguy show' (impeachment dog & pony show) got shoved
to the back burner all of a sudden? Now I guess they are going to wait and see how this
'breakout' aggression move is going to pan out for them.
ISIS was the means - the Trojan horse - to justify the permanent garrisoning of NATO in Iraq
and Syria. Before Russia's intervention, NATO and politicians from NATO countries were
uniform in proclaiming the "fight" against ISIS would be a "generational struggle" which
would take at least 20-30 years to achieve victory. Even after major fighting has reduced the
organization to almost nothing, this rationale lives on in the guise of a "continuing threat"
represented by ISIS' ideology or aspirations. Permanent NATO garrisons in Iraq and Syria
remains the extant policy (ISIS always just the pretext). If the European NATO members balk
at the Iraq civil war which the US will quietly propose in the interest of supporting this
policy, then it is likely the Kurd regions will suffice as a breakaway NATO protectorate.
January 8, 2020 at 1:37 pm GMT •
Iris responded to:
Now Trump will be able to deescalate and Iran will save its face by claiming 80 or so
American soldiers dead
with:
"It is good to gather facts, information and try to cross-check it before making educated
assumptions on subjects ordinary citizens are not privy to.
Countless insightful American commenters propose very well-supported cases, but come to
opposite conclusions with regard to President Trump's real intentions. How could we then
know Iran's strategic roadmap?
The Iranian reaction was long coming. The writing was on the wall when Hassan Nasrallah,
following one too many Israeli strike on Syria, detailed in his Sept 2019 address that the
"Resistance Axis" had the capability to hit strategic Israeli targets that he
named.
It is not normal that US sources have not communicated any detail of the consequences of
the strikes, so many hours after they took place. The Danes have stated there were "no
casualties amongst them", which hints there were casualties amongst other Western
nationalities.
Your cynicism is justified by how real-politik is actually conducted. However, it is also
very possible that we are living a cornerstone moment in ME's History, a reverse moment of
the 2003 invasion of Iraq."
• Replies: @Erebus
Erebus says:
January 9, 2020 at 10:20 am GMT •
@Iris
"Some of what's come out suggests the US has gone full Mafia in response to the last few
years' developments in the M.E. There's no geo-political strategy. There's only (bad)
gangsterism.
Countless insightful American commenters propose very well-supported cases, but come to
opposite conclusions with regard to President Trump's real intentions.
Russia's textbook demonstration of how to combine diplomatic acumen and military
efficiency in sorting problems has given impetus to a Russian authored, Chinese backed
regional security and development proposal that's been making the rounds through the
region's capitals since late summer (at least). Promoted by Iran (mostly via Oman) as a new
paradigm in M.E. affairs, it's been well received everywhere except Saudi Arabia who've
apparently cited their inability to throw off the American yoke as the primary impediment
to their overt support. Notwithstanding, the Saudis have been talking quietly with all
parties and have reportedly even sent emissaries to Tehran for "informal" talks on the
hush-hush. Soleimani was a significant player in these talks, which were being mediated by
Iraq.
In his speech to the Iraqi parliament subsequent to Soleimani's murder, Iraqi Prime
Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi revealed an astonishing tale of the sort of strongarming tactics
America has employed in response. His speech was to be carried live on Iraqi TV, but the
feed was cut immediately after he started by the Speaker.
Nevertheless, his words have leaked to the public. In it he told that Trump had demanded
50% of Iraq's oil revenues, or the US wouldn't go ahead with promised infrastructure
rebuilding of the country they destroyed. Mahdi refused that proposal and headed to China
where he promptly made a deal to rebuild the country. When the US learned of it, Trump
called him to demand that the deal be rescinded and when Mahdi refused Trump threatened to
unleash violent protests against Mahdi's rule.
Sure enough, violent protests began shortly thereafter. Again Trump called and when
Mahdi again refused to rescind the China deal, Trump threatened him with Maidan-style
snipers. Again Mahdi refused, and Iraq's Minister of Defence spoke publicly of "third
party" provocateurs killing both protestors and police, threatening to drive the country
back into civil war.
Again Trump called, and Mahdi reports that this time he threatened Mahdi and the Defence
Minister with assassination if they didn't shut up about "third party" provocateurs.
Meanwhile, Mahdi continued to mediate Iranian-Saudi talks and Soleimani was carrying Iran's
response to the latest Saudi message. He was to meet Mahdi later the morning of his
assassination.
The upshot of all that is that the intent behind Soleimani's gangland slaying was to
send the US' message to Mahdi specifically, but also to Iran, the Saudis, and anyone else
contemplating M.E. rapprochement that murder awaited them if they continued to work towards
peace in the region.
It is not normal that US sources have not communicated any detail of the consequences of
the strikes, so many hours after they took place.
Details are emerging re the Al Assad Air Base attack, and if you're an American
strategist they ain't pretty. The lack of casualties notwithstanding, satellite photos show
that the Iranian salvo hit targets with a very high level of combat efficiency. Any damage
assessment will reveal that technically, Iran can hit whatever it wants to hit.
Qiam missiles were used. They're a cheap 'n cheerful derivative of the Soviet SCUD, and
Iran has 1,000s of them. Hezbollah likely has 1,000s as well, so the picture is even less
pretty if you're an Israeli strategist. Furthermore
Iran informed the Swiss Embassy in Tehran (who represent American interests in Iran) an
hour or more before the attack. More than enough time to get personnel out of harm's way.
FARS' reports of 80 killed and ~200 injured, frankly look to be a narrative for domestic
consumption. It's hard to believe that with the hour+ warning that that many people were
hanging around in the line of fire.
My guess about the delay is that the US is simply stunned.
However, it is also very possible that we are living a cornerstone moment in ME's
History, a reverse moment of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
I believe that's true regardless of what got hit and the number of casualties. This was
a message sending exercise. As unimaginative as it may appear, the salvo sent an
unmistakeable signal that went through the region's capitals and beyond. Here's why they're
all paying attention
1. Iran struck American assets directly, in a brazenly overt manner. No plausible
deniability, proxies or non-state actors involved. It was a State attack on another State's
assets. If there is any doubt that the hit on Suleimani was an act of war, there can be no
doubt about Iran's response. The bully got punched in the nose in front of his entourage
and they're now waiting to see what he'll do. However
2. The IRGC's very high level of confidence in its missiles & missile corps is
obviously warranted. If the US and its satraps expected amateur hour, they got the
diametric opposite – the equivalent of getting your knife shot out of your hand
– and that puts the US in a bad spot.
3. The Qiam salvo was no Kalibrs-from-the-Caspian demonstration of technical prowess,
but so far as I can currently tell, more than half of the missiles targetting Al Assad hit
bull's eyes and American AD failed to intercept any of them. This stands in stark contrast
to Syria's success at knocking down Tomahawks. The Americans claim that the Al Assad
airbase had no missile defence systems installed, which seems incredible, but with the
silence of the Patriot batteries of Abqaiq looming in the background, all of the USM's
regional assets have been exposed as ducks in a barrel. The US simply can't defend
them.
It is clear that with its S300 systems and indigenous air defence in place, Iran can
destroy American assets while minimizing its own losses. What's more, Iran's S300s have
reportedly been networked into Russia's regional air defence systems, and that installing
S400s is being actively considered. With either development, Iran's air space is
effectively closed. Iran's status as the pre-eminent regional power has been cemented into
place, and with the Kremlin's backing there is no way to dislodge it. Every capital must
now run its calculus and begin re-thinking its role in the region, or its relationship with
it.
Without high efficiency air defence, CENTCOM can't defend even itself, never mind the
region's oil infrastructure and perverse allied monarchies. That is now plain as day.
Remaining perceptions of its ability to provide security guarantees to its satraps are now
gone, and so the US' options have been reduced to a choice between escalation, or going
home. There's no there there, and everybody now knows it. The message couldn't be
clearer.
Iran has opened the exit door and we're all waiting to see what heads prevail in
Washington as the facts settle into them. To keep the Americans focussed, one can expect to
see the Iraqi militias begin ratcheting up attacks on American assets in Iraq, and in
collaboration with domestic militia's in Syria as well.
The question now revolves around whether the US needs a thousand cuts to absorb the
message that its dominance of the M.E. is over.
If the US withdraws from the Middle East the Petrodollar will come to an end and the whole US
and the Western financial system collapses. The US and West are trapped by their stupidity in
abusing the financial system to fund their wars and build up a level of debt that can never
and will never be paid. How can the US leave even if they wanted to?
Well, the sun rose in the East again today, so why would anyone be surprised the US wont
leave Iraq and all that black gold. Heck, we never left Germany, Japan and South Korea and
they got nothing but location going for them (as does Iraq)
As for losing. Wars are not fought with an ending as the principle goal, at least not
since WWII. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. Welcome to Orwells 1984, sans the boot in
Oceania (thus far). Cold War followed by GWOT. When the GWOT began to fizzle a mini Cold War
with Russia was started by Obama and AQ was replaced with ISIS. Those are fizzling so Trumps
pulled Iran from Obamas dust bin.
Empires need enemies to hold them together so they can keep feed the MIC beast and keep it
from devouring the hand that feeds them. If an enemy does not exist one is created.
It helps that the majority can be made to believe anything. Ignorance and effective
propaganda, the elimination of a free press, and control of education and entertainment make
that possible. Nothing can reverse this. Sure, a few might break out of the matrix but they
are of no consequence unless they become too visible.
27
The S300 can see F35s just fine.Its not at a fixed model,the appellation is a generic, and
denotes a class of missile with a range of 300km.Radars and c&c systems are updated
constantly.
They are not your daddys S300s that Greece never updated, you're in for a rude surprise if
you think so.
Jen @ 1
"The sheer arrogance and wilful blindness expressed in the US State Department press
statement and WaPo staffer Louisa Loveluck's tweets are astounding beyond belief. "
+++++++
One is left gobsmacked and speechless.
An interloper is told to get the hell out of your house and he retorts: "No, we are here to
stay and renew our marriage vows with you!"
This is insane.
Surely the world can see that Pompeo and others at State are deranged, out of touch with
reality.
Honestly, one is at a loss for words.
As ever, more thanks to b for keeping up with all of this.
Referring your observations here concerning DNC may be problematic, instead it might have
better standing to fact if DLC (Democratic Leadership Committee) is used as it is a construct
of the Clintons in their takeover of the D-party for the 1992 election. It is highly unlikely
Hillary replaced that organisation for her attempts at high office. It is also highly
unlikely Obama had the interest or motive to replace the Clinton organisation in his
Presidency, he hardly replaced Bush 43's administration at the end of eight years. All too
much of this information has gone down memory holes and no longer carries sufficient
significance to matter for the public but should definitely matter to those interested in
modern historical developments. Verification may likely be found by analysing the membership
of the D-party's financial committee (membership should be matter of public record) and
determine their political allegiances
YMMV
On completely unrelated note, b, you are aware that your website, as set as it is, gives us
government technical ability to identify each and every one of posters here? Regardless where
you host your website.
You website imports contents from ajax.googleapis.com. It is spyware used for tracking
users across whole internet, every site that uses google api is voluntarily enabling google
to track people so they can build surfing history/profile for everyone.
google shares that info with us government.
government compares timestamps of posts here, and can identify people.
HTTPS website doesn't protects anyone here in this regard.
Just for posters to know there is technical possibility.
Iraq has Trump by the short hairs.
In a few months the election circus will really get underway. If they're smart and
patriottic, the PMF will slowly start hitting US targets, forcing Trump's hand. An increased
campaign of pressure.
Like Tet '68. The Bagdad Olympics.
karlof1 @50
""'Power-driven vessel A approaches the port side of power-driven vessel B. Vessel A is
considered the give-way vessel. As the give-way vessel, A must take EARLY and SUBSTANTIAL
action to keep clear and avoid crossing the stand-on vessel B.'
Farragut (A) should have passed behind B."
Video was taken on the US ship, right (voice? Looks to me like the Russian ship (top left)
was crossing the US ship's bow from port to starboard of US (closer) ship. I.e., from the
port side. Not "approaching the port side." So, as far as I can see, the US vessel had the
right of way; the Russian ship should have given way/changed course.
Cf. "1. If another vessel is approaching you from the port -- or left -- side of your
boat, you have the right of way and should maintain your speed and direction."
I am going to go out on a limb and say the reason for all the western obfuscation is that
Boeing is already in trouble due to the 737MAX issues. Boeing being a major component in USA
economy needs to be protected from the fact they just lost another plane to mechanical/design
error.
There's lots of info to verify in those comments. For the most part, they're all correct.
The exception comes to Iranian air defences, their indigenous designed S-400 equivalent,
overall radar net, EW capabilities, and independent internet communications. The overall
conclusion is Iran is far better prepared and equipped than Outlaw US Empire/NATO knew. It
should also be reiterated that Iran's under Russia's nuclear aegis, which was publicly stated
by Putin and an adjutant and clearly repeated to Pompeo and Trump by both Lavrov and Putin.
Furthermore as publicly stated, China has Iran's back fiscally. In other words, Iran and its
allies have more oomph collectively than the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals, many of the
latter actually desire better relations with the CRI troika.
Perhaps the key point made is the supposed inability of Saudi to free itself from the
Empire's shackles, which actually does make sense when one thinks long term. The logic of
Iran's HOPE Proposal is impeccable and is the only genuine route out of the current dilemma.
Clearly, it's been determined the Outlaw US Empire is the sole impediment to implementing
HOPE and thus must be ousted from its ability to impede. I wrote back in September when HOPE
was introduced at the UNGA that Trump would be a fool not to embrace it instead of oppose it
as he could then call the Empire a partner in the project. Clearly, he was advised not to do
so.
@ likklemore and karlof1.. i liked the comment on moa twitter feed - "This was an american
driving school marked with a very big "L" means "learner". Please drive carefully with max.
consideration."
@ 66 really? the other video is better then the one shown in b's twitter feed clip.. check
it out in the first video of
2 shown on the rt link.. cheers..
That's the impression you'd get when the USN is crossing the oncoming RuN path. I run into
those sorts of helmsmen all the time on the ocean outside of Newport, Oregon. Additionally,
with all the incidents of terrible navigation abilities seen over the past 3+ years and the
lies made to cover them, the USN has zero credibility just like its parent organization the
Outlaw US Empire.
It occurs to me that a host country that is no in conflict with an over-staying force can
make their life very challenging without having to actually fight them.
Outlaw any commerce between occupying forces and local businesses. Cut the roads to and
from the bases. Fly unarmed drones in the path of their aircraft. Delay, deny, defy any
requests for cooperation. Divert streams to flood their bases. Get really creative and make
their life hell.
Thanks for your reply! From what I observe, there's a lot of political angst within the
Empire that Trump's actions and subsequent BigLies have enhanced and brought to the surface.
The Act of War was the biggest domestic political error he could have committed, which shows
he has zero sense. Sanders is now the #1 D-Party candidate, and he and Gabbard with a
genuinely Progressive & Anti-war platform ought to win handily if allowed to.
You may have seen these one two links I've previously
posted dealing with the beginnings of the 2020 election season. The first is the initial
episode of a series in which I've seen the second, which is here .
The second of the three is very entertaining, and all are just shy of 30 min.
Sadly and unfortunately, the US will only withdrawal after it has suffered another
catastrophic loss, similar to what befell the soldiers in Lebanon. This is a criminal
enterprise sitting atop the US Military. You would figure people putting their ass on the
line would try and understand what they're really fighting for, but alas, most do not find
out until after they come home.
The US has started the chess game in a very poor position, with the pawns and horses deployed
too forward in the chessboard (only 5.200 soldiers in Iraq and 10.000 in Kuwait), and the USA
military leadership are in a very bad situation, if they try to send massive troops and
equipment reinforcement Iran will not be iddle waiting how US is preparing to destroy them as
the stupid Saddam did in 1991 and again in 2003, no, Iran will start the war with any pretext
before new troops & equipment is deployed in significant amounts.
On the other hand, if Iran escalate, the CENTCOM cannot support the "lost" garrison in
Iraq and Kuwait, they do not have enough forces deployed in the theater, and an airlift
operation of this magnitude under fire is very dangerous and a ride through hundreds of miles
through hostile terrain under harassment from Iranians and PMU troops "Hezbollah style" (as
IDF suffer in 2006), and without heavy armor scort and close air support will be almost
suicidal.
Iranian have been preparing for a war with USA from 1979, but now the situation is better
than ever, I do not give a cent on USA now if they do not retreat quickly from Syria and Iraq
(if Trump is enough intelligent it will order soon, but I am afraid he wants to play poker
once more), and stop to make threats and provocations.
But they "cannot" retreat, you know, is an electoral year and Trump want to be re-elected
above all.
Checkmate!
div> Those oil deals Iraq made with China in exchange for Iraqi electrical
infrastructure projects are something Trump will not allow and has threatened Iraq with the
terrors of the earth. As Karloff1 suggests the Iraqis have few choices, Trumps State department
have been blunt... you are vassals and you will do as you are told or you will be punished.
That's plain and we can all be thankful for Trumps honesty. The ball is now in the Iraqi court,
either refuse to be vassals and fight for your sovereignty or bow your heads and vacate the
field.
Those oil deals Iraq made with China in exchange for Iraqi electrical infrastructure projects
are something Trump will not allow and has threatened Iraq with the terrors of the earth. As
Karloff1 suggests the Iraqis have few choices, Trumps State department have been blunt... you
are vassals and you will do as you are told or you will be punished. That's plain and we can
all be thankful for Trumps honesty. The ball is now in the Iraqi court, either refuse to be
vassals and fight for your sovereignty or bow your heads and vacate the field.
I am seeing the position of Iraq against Iran as being very similar to the position of
Ukraine vis a vis Russia -- as 'younger' to 'elder brother'. Not as lesser to greater, but as
family, the ones nearby. Crimea grabbed onto that lifeline - as well they might!
Now a new element of the multipolar world is at early stages of being born. And this was
put in effect, if we go back and look, immediately up the invasion of Iraq by Bush Jr. But,
clearly, Iraq went through more horror, more destabilization than did Ukraine. The latter had
a governmental coup resulting in internal strife; Iraq had a military invasion. So, hopefully
the Resistance will be patient with it - like Syria, it is in great need of aid, comfort, and
reassurance that no further hegemony will be visited upon it. Sovereignty is the issue and
rightfully so.
There are lessons to be learned, after we finish mourning the murders of men who were
apparently engaged in the diplomatic efforts to establish this new multipolarity, or at least
lay some groundwork for future talks along that line. You don't murder diplomats. Case
closed; invaders out! And that is more difficult, more delicate, if up till now you have only
yourself survived as a nation by clinging to the skirts of the American empire. Difficult but
inevitable.
Iraq now can look toward Ukraine. Has that country done well taking the unipolar path?
Hardly. Did South Vietnam? Hardly. But as spring approaches, how are each changing course?
The dust is settling; you can see better. Travel with Pepe over the great mountains following
real trading routes, of the centuries past. Bring your own unique assets to the fore and let
friends visit and see what it is that makes you you. Another name for the Axis of Resistance
is Peace and Prosperity. Mutual benefit. It's coming.
In this country, the US, long ago there was a mighty empire, the empire of the Anasazis,
in the center of the Southwest. They caused to be built mighty edifices and they suborned the
surrounding farming peoples because they had power to predict the seasonal changes and
supposedly command rain to fall. Everyone believed it and everyone obeyed. For a time. There
was no alternative. Until it didn't rain, and it didn't rain. So, the people left, they went
where there were rivers, they abandoned the great Anasazi centre. It is in ruins today. But
the people have survived.
We are suddenly in another pivotal moment. And it will be difficult for those of us who
willingly or not have benefited from empire. But many of us say with you - invaders out!
Peace and blessings to all!
US destroyer blatantly violated international rules for preventing collisions at sea by
making a manoeuvre to cross the Russian ship's course in the North Arabian Sea -
@MoD_Russia🇷🇺
Bearing in mind that Pravda ain't what it used to be this policy, described bluntly in
article title : "If NATO strikes Kaliningrad, Russia will seize Baltic in 48 hours" if real,
would probably extend to the prevention of similar build-up in the matter of the Iraqi and
Iranian "MAGA" programs now developing.
Quote from Pravda> "As soon as we can see the concentration of American aircraft on
airfields in Europe - they cannot reach us in any other way - we will simply destroy those
airfields by launching our medium-range ballistic missiles at those targets. Afterwards, our
troops will go on offensive in the Baltic direction and take control of the entire Baltic
territory within 48 hours. NATO won't even have time to come to its senses - they will see a
very powerful military buildup on the borders with Poland. Then they will have to think
whether they should continue the war. As a result, all this will end with NATO losing the
Baltic States," Mikhail Alexandrov told Pravda.Ru describing one of the scenarios for a
possible development of events in case of Russia's response to NATO aggression.
Another variant for the breakthrough of the missile defense system in Kaliningrad provides
for a massive cruise missile attack on the Russian territory. According to the expert, Russia
has cruise and ballistic missiles that it can launch on the territory of the United
States.
"If the Americans launch a missile attack on Kaliningrad, then we will strike, say, Seattle,
where largest US aircraft factories are located. Having destroyed those factories we will
deprive the Americans of the possibility to build their aircraft. They will no longer be able
to build up their fleet of military aircraft," said Mikhail Alexandrov.
Russia has efficient air defense systems to intercept cruise missiles. If it goes about a
ballistic missile strike, the expert reminded that Russia has a missile defense area in
Moscow that can intercept at least 100 missiles and maybe even more, since there are no
restrictions associated with the ABM Treaty.
One might assume the same policy would apply for all Ru, and Iran too, as Iran is critical to
the survival of Ru.
On the topic of Iran not waiting for a military build up as a precursor to a US assault on
Iran...
I wonder if an intermediate step for Iran might be, in cooperation with the PMU, to
threaten to attack any new forces coming into Iraq, taking this to be escalation prior to an
invasion, and therefore a threat that must countered before it worsens.
but there is this query: what are the consequences of taunting? A review of the past year
saw the u.s. losing stature and, since 2014, its dollar as world reserve currency being
shunned.
FF
2019: Abqaig - After the Houthis take down of KSA oil facilities, and failure of US defenses
does KSA still feel secure?
Working closely with Russia, Soleimani was instrumental in the battles for Syria, Lebanon
and Yemen.
Trump, the braggart, stunned the world. Even their special relationship Brits!
It is reported when Boris was told of Soleimani's murder he said, O, F**K.
January 3, 2020 everything changed and they know not what they have done on behalf of
Israel.
An exit from Iraq would make the occupation and theft of oil from Syria untenable,and the
land route from Iran to Syria and Lebanon less hazardous. This would be fatal for Israel and
will insist the US stay in Iraq. Unfortunately for the US 5,000 will not cut the mustard, how
many US troops could Trump put into Iraq to quell an uprising in election year? US bases in
the Gulf are extremely vulnerable especially the largest base Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar who
many regard as being located in enemy territory. Trump is gambling and many shrinks think
he's nuts, I agree..... Psychiatrists: Urgent action must be taken against Trump for creating
Iran crisis
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/01/10/615852/Trump-is-%E2%80%98dangerous-and-incapacitated%E2%80%99-Psychiatrists
The two videos don't look like the same situation.
The first appears to have been shot from the Farragut's port side; the second, from her
starboard side.
And in the first the Russian ship appears to be bearing down on the Farragut off the
Farragut's port bow. In the second the Russian ship appears to be overtaking the Farragut,
coming up from the starboard side. I don't see how the videos can have been taken at the same
time. The rule that seems to apply to the situ in video 1 is:
"Crossing Situation.
When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel
which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the
circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel."
Since the Russian vessel appears to have the Farragut on her starboard side, the Russian
vessel should change course and presumably deflect to starboard. (Once the two vessels were
as close as they were, both should have deflected to starboard.) But instead it looks as
though the Russian vessel at the last minute deflected to port.
However, video 2 looks like a totally different situ. So to me it remains unclear what the
actual disposition of the vessels was. The videos must have been taken at two different
points in the encounter.
Thank you b for these great articles and allowing comments.
I want to nod out to ChasMark | Jan 10 2020 22:21 utc | 55 for a great comment.
For decades the US has controlled the world through petro dollars and counterinsurgency
warfare. They lost every time at this but its more about the money spent and keeping fluidity
within economic circles.
With Iran's missile attack being an eye opener I hope the US is smart enough to know they
have lost. MIC spokes person when asked why the base did not protect itself. He said they did
not have the hardware to do it. No Patriots because they owned the sky up to that point. What
is a Patriot to counterinsurgency. They had a M-901 (TEL) which they got rid of years ago
supposedly. It is loaded with six TOW missiles and would generally be used to disable bomb
laden vehicles approaching the gate. Counterinsurgency again.
Those days are over. It is the day of the missile and belt and road economic plans. No
longer can air craft carriers hang off the coast to control the skies. How will the stunned
US MIC bring in additional troops and equipment. Planes or ships are small targets but highly
valuable ones. It is not always easy to know how things happen. Like the ships struck this
past year in the gulf or KSA oil infrastructure hit, who did it and how is hard to
determine.
I imagine the MIC is burning the mid-night oil with the realization that they are now in a
war they are totally unprepared to fight. They have 15,000 soldiers strung out in Iraq
unprotected from missile attack and no way to protect them. They will talk all BS but it is
empty and they know it. They do have two things. One is fear and the other nukes.
There is much talk of weak knees among the Iraqi people and government. That is with good
reason. The destruction of city after city. Some they find through the birth of deformed
children that some of their cities are radioactive. Of course they are afraid the USA killed
a million of them and turned 24 million into refugees. As time goes on they will realize that
the bully is not what it was and every new strike by Iran will build the confidence to push
the Americans out.
I wonder if the day of the nuke is coming to an end as well. Temper tantrum Trump decides
to nuke either Iran or Iraq the world will speak up. Perhaps strike back as the Russians have
said. If the point is the oil and gas in the area and the control of it then nukes will
destroy that value.
If there was a time that America wet itself it is now. If the 9 flags stand together then
move as one their cries will drive the heathen from their home. I also believe that if it
happens then the USA is done. Played out.
"Iran could not have dreamt of a better President to rejuvenate its position domestically and
regionally."
The problem is that Israel could not have dreamt of a better President to get a war with
Launched. In fact, Ayelet Shaked, the Israeli Minister of Justice (some irony there), once
said as much explicitly, albeit over the issue of the West Bank, not Iran.
In a tweet following a Jerusalem Post conference in New York on Sunday, Ayelet Shaked said
it was time for Israel to "establish facts on the ground".
"There is no better time than now," Shaked, who earlier this month was sacked by Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as justice minister, wrote on Twitter.
"Do not miss Trump's reign - that's what I just said at the Jerusalem Post in New York."
End Wuote
This is because Trump is devoted to Israel and devoted to an antipathy to Iran. The more
Iran gains ground in the Middle East, the more Israel will push Trump (and any successor to
Trump) to attack Iran. And he will do it - either deliberately or out of incompetence - and
the difference doesn't matter.
It occurs to me that a host country that is no in conflict with an over-staying force can
make their life very challenging without having to actually fight them.
. . .
Posted by: Figleaf23 | Jan 10 2020 23:53 utc | 72
++++++++++++++
Change all the road and street signs! OK, there are fewer signs in Iraq than there were in
Czechoslovakia, but it would still be worth a shot.
That's the impression you'd get when the USN is crossing the oncoming RuN path. . . .
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 10 2020 23:48 utc | 71
++++++++++
Well, when two ships are approaching each other at an angle, they are both crossing each
other's path. What counts is, who is going faster and thus will cross the other's bow sooner.
It sure looks to me like when they got close the Ru vessel had the Farragut on her (Ru's)
starboard side. If the two vessels were going opposite directions but on parallel tracks,
they would pass same side to same side (i.e., port to port; starboard to starboard). If they
are approaching at an angle, the relative relationship of the two sides will change with the
speed of the vessels. You must visualize the situ from each vessel, not one, and gauge speed
and relationship when the two courses cross. However, both vessels in proximity have the
obligation to take action to avoid a collision. In that situ I believe the default is for
both to deflect to starboard.
Wait to see who says uncle first at sea is a stupid game of chicken. Basically IMO both
captains broke the rule of avoiding collisions and endangered their crews and their
vessels.
In the video where the Russian ship is in the top left-hand corner, the USS Farragut is
moving away from the Russian ship. In that video, the Russian ship is travelling behind the
US ship and crosses from the
Here is a wonderful and witty must read article by Gary Brecher [the War Nerd] which puts the
US predicament in the Gulf into perspective
"Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack."
That's right: no defense at all. The truth is that they have very feeble defenses against any
attack with anything more modern than cannon. I've argued before no carrier group would
survive a saturation attack by huge numbers of low-value attackers, whether they're Persians
in Cessnas and cigar boats or mass-produced Chinese cruise missiles. But at least you could
look at the missile tubes and Phalanx gatlings and pretend that you were safe. But there is
no defense, none at all, against something as obvious as a ballistic missile. http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/
Sorry, accidentally posted too early @ 94 after being interrupted. I meant to say that the
Russian ship, travelling behind the Farragut, crossed from that ship's starboard side to its
portside. This suggests that the Farragut did not give way in the first video when the
Russian ship first approached but steamed on ahead and went in front of the Russian ship.
Medusa-Perseus @ 83: Thanks for the link. Despite the authors speaking, in the first
paragraph, about Iran's "provocations", it's an informative and well written piece.
An excerpt;
"Again, it is high time that Washington get off its high horse and begin to negotiate a
new world order with globe's major powers. The prospects for this, however, appear less
likely than ever. Unfortunately, when there was still an opportunity to use American power to
reshape rather than destabilize the world, the Obama administration chose the latter. With
the opportunity to shift course in a mode more imposed by, rather than imposed on the U.S.
virtually dissipated, the Trump administration is continuing in the Obama mode of
destabilization while falling back on the one-sidedness of the military option–with all
the predictable consequences."
An American (a professor at that, but not of culture) once asked back around 2011 the
following: "Why do people in the Middle East talk so frequently about humiliation and
dignity? Other countries were colonized or lost wars, yet they do not speak about humiliation
and dignity. I assume that an answer to this question will help me understand Middle Eastern
culture."
The differences between shame and guilt based cultures are interesting.
The terminology was popularized by Ruth Benedict in The Chrysanthemum and the Sword ,
who described American culture as a "guilt culture" and Japanese culture as a "shame
culture." The Islamic Middle East is generally a shame based culture.
In east-west interactions these two distinct worldviews and values systems operate -- i.e.
guilt vs shame. For example:
"Loyalty: All Arabs belong to a group or tribe. Loyalty to the family tribe is considered
paramount to maintaining honor. One does not question the correctness of the elders or tribes
in front of outsiders. It is paramount that the tribe sticks together in order to survive.
Once again, Arab history and folklore are full of stories of heroes who were loyal to the
end."
In the Eastern view (well Islamic anyway), there is a stronger sense that one has 'it'
(honor) by birth and then risks losing it through various shameful actions etc. As distinct
from a work ethic stance where working towards something is the goal.
The main issue at play in the recent Iran-US-Iraqi dynamic from this point of view is not
the surface level simpleton MSM narrative of who was the good & bad guys etc. Leave that
for the childish unsophisticated 'super hero' mentalities raised on comics.
Rather, in this case, it is the fact/perception that the Arab Iraqi 'host' failed to
uphold the accepted ancient honor codes of protecting an invited guest (well at least for
three days). Only barbarians do not understand and play by this value system.
So, the USA, as the said culturally ignorant actors, is actually not really the core issue
in this case. That is just an inconvenient fact of history.
What is more real and politically charged is the fact that the Iraqi Arab nation
(leadership) invited an Iranian (Persian) guest -- allegedly to talk peace deals with the
Wahhabi gang -- and failed to uphold/honor the ancient host-guest codes. Even if there was no
duplicity involved, the fact remains scratched into the historical record that they failed --
ergo, shame must now be dealt with.
Therefore, the future events will more than likely unfold one way or another according to
the honor-shame etiquette process.
Now, of course some in the US hierarchy may well know and understand this dynamic and
apply it -- and Gregory Bateson used the term "Schismogenesis" in the 1930s and played his
part in WW2 within the (then) Office of Strategic Services (OSS), an institutional precursor
to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), against Japanese held territories in the Pacific. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismogenesis
)
AP reports: US tried to take out another Iranian leader, but failed
LINK
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. military tried, but failed, to take out another senior
Iranian commander on the same day that an American airstrike killed the Revolutionary
Guard's top general, U.S. officials said Friday.
The officials said a military airstrike by special operations forces targeted Abdul Reza
Shahlai, a high-ranking commander in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps but the
mission was not successful. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to
discuss a classified mission.[.]
Officials said both Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Shahlai were on approved military
targeting lists, which indicates a deliberate effort by the U.S. to cripple the leadership
of Iran's Quds force, which has been designated a terror organization by the U.S. Officials
would not say how the mission failed.[.]
There has been a similar incident between US and Russian navies a few months ago.
Same claims from the USN against the Russians.
Guess what? The video clearly showed the Russians on the starboard side of the USN ship.
, This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your
comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the
image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
< B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
< U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
< A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
The USA Has Been Bombing Iraq For 29 Years by Tyler Durden Wed, 01/08/2020 - 21:05 0
SHARES
Over the past days while little real debate over the Iran crisis has happened in Washington
or Congress (instead it's merely the default drones and "bombs away" as usual), the American
public has been busy online and in living rooms debating the merits or lack thereof of
escalation and potential war with Iran.
However, like with many other instances of US foreign policy adventurism, this is typically
a "debate" lacking in necessary recent historical context or appreciation for how the domino
effect of disasters now facing American security were often brought on by prior US action in
the first place. As a case in point, it's not recognized often enough in public discourse that
it was the United States under the neocon Bush administration which handed Iraq over to
"Iranian influence" and the Shia clerics in the first place .
It must be remembered that Saddam Hussein was a secular Sunni dictator presiding over a Shia
majority population, and he was enemy #1 of Iran. Team USA's short-sighted and criminal 2003
invasion and overthrow of Saddam based on WMD lies had the immediate benefit to Tehran of
handing the Ayatollah the greatest gift that Iran waged a nearly decade-long war to accomplish,
but couldn't (the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War).
And the neocons within the bowels of the national security state have ever since been
attempting to salvage their failed legacy in Iraq by the futile effort of trying to contain
Iran and roll back Shia dominance in Baghdad, as Seymour Hersh detailed in his famous 2006 New
Yorker piece The Redirection , which
accurately predicted the 'long war' against the Hezbollah-Damascus-Baghdad-Tehran axis which
would unfold, and did indeed unfold, especially in Syria of the past eight years.
To "situate" the past week's dramatic events, it's also crucial to understand, as The
Libertarian Institute's Scott Horton has pointed out , that "The U.S.A.
has been bombing Iraq for 29 years. And it looks like it's not over yet."
Below is an essential timeline compiled by Horton of that nearly three decade long history
where Iraq has been consistently subject to American bombs and intervention -- yet ironically
(and some might say predictably) the situation is still getting worse, more unstable, and more
dangerous.
Iraq War I : January -- February 1991 (aka The Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, liberation
of Kuwait)
Iraq War I 1/2 : February 1991 -- March 2003 (The rest of Bush I, Bill Clinton years,
economic blockade and no-fly zone bombings)
Iraq War II : March 2003 -- December 2011 (aka Operation Iraqi Freedom, W. Bush's invasion
and war for the Shi'ite side)
Iraq War III : August 2014 -- December 2017 (aka Operation Inherent Resolve, the war against
the Islamic State, which America had helped to build up in Syria but then launched this war to
destroy, on behalf of the Shi'ite government in Baghdad, after ISIS had seized the
predominately Sunni west of the country in the early summer of 2014 and declared the Islamic
State "Caliphate")
Iraq War III 1/2 : December 2017 -- January 2020 (The "mopping-up" war against the remnants
of ISIS which has had the U.S. still allied with the very same Shi'ite militias they fought
Iraq War II and III for, but are now attacking)
Iraq War IV : Now -- ?
NEW from me: We asked folks to identify Iran on an unlabeled map.
As Scott Horton suggests, the roots of the current crisis lie all the way back in the mid-20th century
:
In 1953, the American CIA overthrew the elected prime minister of Iran in favor of the
Shah Reza Pahlavi who ruled a dictatorship there for 26 years until in 1979 a popular
revolution overthrew his government and installed the Shi'ite Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
in power.
So in 1980, President Jimmy Carter's government gave Iraq's Saddam Hussein the green light to
invade Iran, a war which the U.S. continued to support throughout
the Ronald Reagan years, though they also sold weapons
to the Iranian side at times.
But then in 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in a dispute over debts from the recent war with
Iran, with some
encouragement by the U.S. government, leading to America's Iraq War I, aka the first Gulf
War or Operation
Desert Storm at the beginning of 1991.
And that was merely the very beginning.
Read the rest of the story and the excellent brief history of how we got here over at
The
Libertarian Institute .
Yep. And the initial excuse (WMDs) was proven absolutely to have been a contrived hoax.
Yet, all of the people of that decimated country and surrounding nations who have a vendetta
against us are labeled "terrorists". I guess the English language has evolved beyond my
comprehension since the usurpation by the tribe of our media and government.
By the definition of "terrorist" - terrorist | ˈterərəst | noun a person
who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of
political aims: - I see only the United States of Israel as befitting this word.
The neocon cabal of Pompeo, Ester and O'bian needs to be fired immediately and investigated
by FBI.
Notable quotes:
"... As for the war powers resolution justification provided by the administration, that legislation was not designed to alter the fundamental constitutional balance, but to restore it, Healy says. Critically, it does not give presidents a free pass to carry out military action for 60 days without congressional approval, as some have suggested. ..."
"... The war powers resolution itself was introduced after Congress discovered Nixon's secret war in Cambodia in 1973. It was designed to allow Congress to terminate any unauthorized actions taken by the executive branch and to require transparency. If the president responds to any "imminent threat" not covered by an existing statute or law authorizing use of force, then the president must within 48 hours report to Congress what actions have been taken. ..."
"... "With the Soleimani strike, the administration is saying they're responding to an imminent threat, but they have not publicly stated what that threat is," said Kate Kizer, policy director at Win Without War, in an interview with TAC. "From reporting, there's not a lot of evidence of an imminent attack. So they should have come to Congress first and said what they were going to do." ..."
"... The Constitution clearly gives the power to declare war to Congress. Article II states that the president can act without Congress only when it is necessary to do so against imminent threats to U.S. territories, possessions, or citizens. ..."
claims
the strike was "authorized" in part by the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),
which provided the legal basis for the war in Iraq.
"Unless Trump is using his presidential sharpie, it's not at all clear how this 17-year-old
statute authorizes what seems to be a major escalation that could start a whole new war," said
Gene Healy, vice president of the Cato Institute, in an interview with The AmericanConservative.
As for the war powers resolution justification provided by the administration, that
legislation was not designed to alter the fundamental constitutional balance, but to restore
it, Healy says. Critically, it does not give presidents a free pass to carry out military
action for 60 days without congressional approval, as some have suggested.
The war powers resolution itself was introduced after Congress discovered Nixon's secret
war in Cambodia in 1973. It was designed to allow Congress to terminate any unauthorized
actions taken by the executive branch and to require transparency. If the president responds to
any "imminent threat" not covered by an existing statute or law authorizing use of force, then
the president must within 48 hours report to Congress what actions have been taken.
In the case of Soleimani, "the Pentagon statement doesn't mention any imminent attacks,"
notes Healy . Secretary of State Mike "Pompeo says Soleimani was planning
an attack that could have killed hundreds of lives, but he's provided no evidence for that. I
think it's hardly cynical to verify, instead of blindly trusting, given the track record of
this administration and recent past administrations."
"With the Soleimani strike, the administration is saying they're responding to an
imminent threat, but they have not publicly stated what that threat is," said Kate Kizer,
policy director at Win Without War, in an interview with TAC. "From reporting, there's not a
lot of evidence of an imminent attack. So they should have come to Congress first and said what
they were going to do."
That's because there's simply "
no viable argument " that the 2002 AUMF authorizes force against Iran , according to
Brian Egan, a former legal adviser to both the State Department and the NSC,
and Tess Bridgeman, a senior fellow at NYU School of Law and former a ssociate
c ounsel to the p resident.
The 2002 AUMF allows the president to "defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq " and "enforce all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions against Iraq " ( emphasis added
).
"Those are plainly not relevant to the situation" today, Egan and Bridgeman
write.
The Trump administration also said
it does not " need congressional sign off from a legal standpoint" for the
Soleimani strike because of the president's authority as
commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution , CNN reported.
The Constitution clearly gives the power to declare war to Congress. Article II states
that the president can act without Congress only when it is necessary to do so against
imminent threats to U.S. territories, possessions, or citizens.
That's why Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Pentagon chief Mark Esper, and Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley were so emphatic Monday that the U.S. was responding
to an "imminent threat." But so far, no evidence of that has been provided.
While a 2018 Office of Legal Council (OLC) opinion offers a very liberal
definition of executive authority and provides
" very little constraint on modern presidential uses of force," it appears to classify the
Soleimani strike as an act of war, since Iran is a nation state that will likely escalate its
military retaliation in response to the killing of their uniformed military member.
Indeed, the U.S. has already
said it will send 3,500 additional troops to the Middle East "after Iran vowed to exact
'severe revenge.'" The U.S. has warned its citizens to leave Iraq, and Iran has
already begun firing at housing for American forces in Iraq: all signs that point to
escalation.
Moreover, targeted political assassinations, like the kind used against Soleimani, have been
banned by executive order since the Ford administration. Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order
12333, which reads: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government
shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."
Soleimani was "not a rogue outlaw, but a military official of a sovereign government we were
not at war with, making his killing an assassination,"
writes Ben Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities. "His actions, however evil,
served Iranian policy."
"The idea that the president can, without going to Congress, take out a top level official
of a country we're not in an authorized war with, is crossing a Rubicon," said Healy.
So what happens now?
Congress has several choices to make in the days ahead. It can pass empty, non-binding
resolutions, that require the president's sign-off, like the kind suggested by Kaine and
Pelosi. Or it can repeal the decades-old
AUMFs that have been used to justify continuing U.S. escalations in the Middle East.
Congress could also pass bills like those by Representative Khanna and Senator Sanders to
strip funding for offensive military action against Iran from the NDAA.
It remains to be seen if Congress will choose substantive actions, like defunding
unauthorized wars, over window dressing.
"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters
defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis
would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if
the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act
of war without Congressional authorization.
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't
believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles
America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the
threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a
Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right
thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture
sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining
light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been
in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will
happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill
and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to
a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us
all.
You've sure got it right with "rapture-mad", and the most frightening thing is that the
religious zealotry of Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney and Barr, inoculates them against any
criticism, because they believe they are serving a "higher"power and any criticism is a
testimony to their faith. In fact, by turning themselves into martyrs, they get to advance in
line for the Rapture. It seems particularly ironic that Evangelicals who support Israel do so
because they see God's plan unfolding there. The Jews, just happen to be sacrificial lambs in
the grand scheme. so they must must be preserved until the time is ripe for their rightful
annihilation, heralding the Second Coming. So, the problem of Pompeo, et al, is not Iran
destroying Israel, it's just that they've determined the timing is off.
As for the "wag the dog" theory, sure, Trump sees no difference between his personal fortunes
and national interests. But worse, the impeachment rests upon evidence that points to a
personal criminality on an international scale, which is the landscape where we find
ourselves. The president pardons convicts like Gallagher and Arpaio because they are cruel or
bloodthirsty. He admires dictators and ignores the law whenever he can, both as a private
individual and a president, and has obstructed a legal investigation into his corruption.
Now, on the international stage, by bypassing Congress, he is ignoring the sovereignty of the
American people, while incoherently threatening war crimes. Trump is fully blossoming into a
man like those he admires, an unrestrained, unprincipled, heavy hitting international tyrant.
I'm so disgusted with those whose job it is to check this man, and have abdicated their
responsibility, because they want to be like him. Reply 230 Recommend Share
I was at a friend's house on election night ready to celebrate Clinton's victory. When the
networks suddenly announced that Trump had won Florida, a professor of international
relations who was with us ominously predicted, "we are going to war with Iran." And here we
are.
America has become a living nightmare. A global power perceived mostly as benevolent by the
world is now a danger to all, including itself. Already having killed the Paris Agreement,
and Iran Nuclear Treaty, not to mention walking away from a nuclear arms treaty with the
Russians, Trump is now ready to wreak real havoc on the world - start a war. Boy will they
forget about impeachment now!
We haven't authorized the assassination of a military leader since the daring mission to kill
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in 1943. Although he'd been the architect of the Pearl Harbor
attack, and we were at war with Japan, this was a departure so significant that it only
proceeded after lengthy deliberation. And now, this. Your article fills in precisely how this
was so very much not that. But one party is in so cult-deep into this president now that the
lies won't stop. Thousands of Iranian have lost their lives in the past month trying to rid
themselves of this regime. Not only were those deaths rendered in vain by the assassination
of Suleimani, but the Iranian people are also even more yoked to a government they hate. And
wasn't the idea of grassroots-driven change in regime a core strategy behind pulling out of
the nuclear deal? And it's not okay because Suleimani is "evil." That's both subjective and
never a justification for an assassination of a foreign military leader of a nation we're not
at war with. As I noted, it was questionable when it was a military leader of nation we were
at war with. But, most important, what did we gain from this? Following yet another
disasterous military and foreign policy snap decision it only makes the importance of
removing Trump from office more urgent. Come for the Constitutional crime but convict because
the defendant is also manifestly unfit for the office. People are dying because of it and
more will die if he stays. Reply 186 Recommend Share
What, then, for an effective response? Outrage is mere fuel: what is the engine? A full year
seems too long. The Senate seems hopeless. What does that leave? Must we take to the streets
to stop this disaster of a president? All this time spent wondering how this will end makes
me feel like a victim of domestic abuse. What a waste. 1 Reply 180 Recommend Share
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
McConnell Wrangles Republicans For Speedy Trump Acquittal As Schumer Cries Cover-Up
by Tyler Durden Tue,
01/07/2020 - 15:11 0 SHARES
Most Senate Republicans have lined up behind Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan for a
lightning-fast, witness-free impeachment trial which will end with the acquittal of President
Trump - much to the chagrin of Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer of New York.
McConnell (R-KY) has been unswayed by former National Security Adviser John Bolton's offer
to testify, as well as the recent emergence of emails suggesting Trump's direct involvement in
his administration's pausing of US aid to Ukraine after asking President Volodomyr Zelensky to
investigate Joe and Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 US election.
Two Republicans who have on occasion broken with Trump and have criticized McConnell's
statements about the trial -- Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Maine's Susan Collins -- say they
back his plan to follow the precedent of Bill Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial by delaying
any decision on witnesses.
"I think we need to do what they did the last time they did this unfortunate process, and
that was to go through a first phase and then they reassessed after that," Murkowski
said.
McConnell likely has the votes to force the issue without cooperation from Democrats . -
Bloomberg
McConnell has guaranteed that Senate Democrats won't have the 67 votes required to convict
Trump and remove him from office. Meanwhile, he can simply point to Clinton's impeachment as
precedent on witness testimony, as it would allow Trump's lawyers and White House impeachment
managers to make their arguments and answer questions from Senators before administration
figures such as Bolton and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney have a chance to speak.
There have been no discussions between McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D-NY), who can go pound sand as talks seem unlikely.
"If every Republican senator votes for a rigged trial that hides the truth, the American
people will see that the Republican Senate is part of a large and awful cover-up," said Schumer
in a Tuesday screed on the Senate floor.
Chuck Schumer: "Whoever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents? It's
unprecedented ... Witnesses and documents? Fair trial. No witnesses and no documents?
Cover-up. That simple sentence describes it all." Via ABC pic.twitter.com/eKhKoBjIVP
According to Trump, Bolton 'would know nothing' about the Ukraine situation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), meanwhile, has yet to reveal when she plans to transmit
the articles of impeachment to the Senate, thereby making Trump's
impeachment official according to House Democratic witness and Harvard Law professor, Dr.
Noah Feldman.
Pelosi's allies argue that the Senate turning down Bolton's offer to testify under subpoena
suggest that Republicans are involved in covering up evidence against Trump.
"McConnell is making very plain he's not interested in the country learning the full extent"
of Trump's misconduct, according to a Tuesday statement by House Intelligence Chairman Adam
Schiff. "And apparently there are any number of senators willing to go along with that
head-in-the-sand strategy," he added.
The only difference between a Dem and a Repub in Congress is the shear ignorance of their
voters. But Trump has exposed his voters to be the biggest dolts of the last century!
If Pelosi could have offed that terrorist Salami to change the subject she would have. She
has seriously misjudged this escapade. I'm sure Schiff and Nadler convinced her they could
use the MSM to split off some republican votes and gain momentum. Their case is so weak they
couldn't even get any the 30+ republicans that are retiring with nothing to lose to split off
and vote with the dems. Where's the popcorn?
This is truly shocking: Trump assassinates diplomatic envoy he
himself arranged for. . If the U.S. lured Soleimani to Iraq with a promise of negotiations
with the Iraqis as mediators and then proceeded to kill him, surely that would be an impeachable
offense. Particularly in view of the failure to brief Congress. If it was Saudi tricked Soleimani
by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the
mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
The US changed the rules of engagement. They had decided to assassinate Soleimani when he was
in Syria, having just returned from a short journey to Lebanon, before boarding a commercial
flight from Damascus airport to Baghdad. The US killing machine was waiting for him to land in
Baghdad and monitored his movements when he was picked up at the foot of the plane. The US hit
the two cars, carrying Soleimani and the al-Muhandes protection team, when they were still inside
the airport perimeter and were slowing down at the first check-point.
US forces will no longer be safe in Iraq outside protected areas inside the military bases
where they are deployed. A potential danger or hit-man could be lurking at every corner; this
will limit the free movement of US soldiers. Iran would be delighted were the Iraqi groups to
decide to hit the American forces and hunt them wherever they are. This would rekindle memories
of the first clashes between Jaish al-Mahdi and US forces in Najaf in 2004-2005.
Impeachment with GOP support could be just around the corner. And who lost Iraq??? He would
be a dead man walking in that case. I can't see the evangelical crowd saving him. President
Pence. Might have to get use to that.
Here is a link to a twitter account with a good video of massive crowds on the streets of
Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani. Very powerful.
There will be no draining of any swamps. Trump-Kushner just another Bibi lackey.
Posted by: Jerry | Jan 5 2020 15:48 utc | 13
1. Draining swamps was a marker of progress in the past. >>Wiki:But in the late
1960s and early 1970s, researchers found that marshes and swamps "were worth billions
annually in wildlife production, groundwater recharge, and for flood, pollution, and erosion
control." This motivated the passage of the 1972 federal Water Pollution Control
Act.<<
2. To recognize this vital role, parties should adopt more acquatic symbols. Caymans are a
bit too similar to alligators, but, say, Alligators vs Snapping Turtles?
Yes, it might just be that this debacle provides the extra impulse to get him removed.
Can't say I can even imagine what that would look like, but there would seem to be a good
argument now that he must be restrained somehow. Somebody needs to tell Pompeous to stop
digging the hole deeper (shutup) too.
McConnell Wrangles Republicans For Speedy Trump Acquittal As Schumer Cries Cover-Up
by Tyler Durden Tue,
01/07/2020 - 15:11 0 SHARES
Most Senate Republicans have lined up behind Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan for a
lightning-fast, witness-free impeachment trial which will end with the acquittal of President
Trump - much to the chagrin of Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer of New York.
McConnell (R-KY) has been unswayed by former National Security Adviser John Bolton's offer
to testify, as well as the recent emergence of emails suggesting Trump's direct involvement in
his administration's pausing of US aid to Ukraine after asking President Volodomyr Zelensky to
investigate Joe and Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 US election.
Two Republicans who have on occasion broken with Trump and have criticized McConnell's
statements about the trial -- Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Maine's Susan Collins -- say they
back his plan to follow the precedent of Bill Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial by delaying
any decision on witnesses.
"I think we need to do what they did the last time they did this unfortunate process, and
that was to go through a first phase and then they reassessed after that," Murkowski
said.
McConnell likely has the votes to force the issue without cooperation from Democrats . -
Bloomberg
McConnell has guaranteed that Senate Democrats won't have the 67 votes required to convict
Trump and remove him from office. Meanwhile, he can simply point to Clinton's impeachment as
precedent on witness testimony, as it would allow Trump's lawyers and White House impeachment
managers to make their arguments and answer questions from Senators before administration
figures such as Bolton and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney have a chance to speak.
There have been no discussions between McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D-NY), who can go pound sand as talks seem unlikely.
"If every Republican senator votes for a rigged trial that hides the truth, the American
people will see that the Republican Senate is part of a large and awful cover-up," said Schumer
in a Tuesday screed on the Senate floor.
Chuck Schumer: "Whoever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents? It's
unprecedented ... Witnesses and documents? Fair trial. No witnesses and no documents?
Cover-up. That simple sentence describes it all." Via ABC pic.twitter.com/eKhKoBjIVP
According to Trump, Bolton 'would know nothing' about the Ukraine situation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), meanwhile, has yet to reveal when she plans to transmit
the articles of impeachment to the Senate, thereby making Trump's
impeachment official according to House Democratic witness and Harvard Law professor, Dr.
Noah Feldman.
Pelosi's allies argue that the Senate turning down Bolton's offer to testify under subpoena
suggest that Republicans are involved in covering up evidence against Trump.
"McConnell is making very plain he's not interested in the country learning the full extent"
of Trump's misconduct, according to a Tuesday statement by House Intelligence Chairman Adam
Schiff. "And apparently there are any number of senators willing to go along with that
head-in-the-sand strategy," he added.
The idea of launching military action to distract from domestic political troubles has been
a thing at least since the 1997
film "Wag the Dog" (as in, the tail wagging the dog) gave it a name. Republicans accused
President Bill Clinton of it in 1998 when he ordered airstrikes against Sudan and Iraq as
impeachment loomed. Trump alleged (wrongly) that President Barack Obama would "
start a war with Iran " before the 2012 election.
Trump's assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani has, at least for the moment, shifted
attention from the Senate trial. Before the attack, pro-impeachment activists had scheduled a
protest inside the Hart Senate Office Building for Monday, but only 45 demonstrators showed up
for the event, nearly equaled by the 20 journalists and 15 police officers who greeted them.
Though wearing "Remove Trump" and "Trump is Guilty" T-shirts, they were about as disruptive as
a tour group.
... ... ...
Now, Trump has lit the Middle East on fire, with only a halfhearted attempt to justify the
sudden urgency ("This president waited three years. I mean, we've had Soleimani in our sights
for just as long as we've been here," Trump strategist Kellyanne Conway told Fox News on Monday).
Thousands of U.S. troops are hurriedly deploying to the region, Iraq is demanding that U.S.
troops
leave the country , and Iran is threatening retaliation and
renewing its nuclear ambitions .
This is precisely why the impeachment trial -- and Bolton's long-sought testimony -- must go
forward. The same lawlessness and recklessness that led Trump to extort political help from
Ukraine has now brought us, willy-nilly, to the precipice of war, as Trump openly threatens to
commit war crimes. If unchecked, he'll do this again -- and worse.
Not only Mossad but probably many others would like to see a suicide bomber blow himself
up somewhere in the US killing alot of people. That makes it difficult to figure out who
did it and maybe impossible to figure it out. It would be a mess.
But they could always find an un-scorched Iranian passport in mint condition among the
debris of the explosion.
Ukraine is now a pawn in a big geopolitical game against Russia. Which somehow survived 90th when everybody including myself has
written it off.
That's why the USA, EU (Germany) and Russia pulling the country in different directions. But the victory of Ukrainian nationalists
is not surprising and is not solely based on the US interferences (although the USA did lot in this direction) pursuit its geopolitical
game against Russia. Distancing themselves from Russa is a universal trend in Post-Soviet space. And it often takes ugly forms.
So Ukraine in not an exception here. It is part of the "rule". Essentially the dissolution of the USSR revised the result on WWII.
And while the author correctly calls Ukrainian leader US stooges, they moved in this direction because they feel that it is necessary
for maintaining the independence. In other words anti-Russian stance is considered by the Ukrainian elite as a a pre-condition for mainlining
independence. Otherwise people like Parubiy would be in jail very soon. They are tolerated and even promoted because they are useful.
It repeats the story of Baltic Republics, albeit with a significant time delay. There should be some social group that secure independence
of the country and Ukrainian nationalists happen to be such a group. That's why Yanukovich supported them and Svoboda party (with predictable
results).
Notable quotes:
"... The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional negotiations. ..."
"... Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President. And who were helping lead this effort? ..."
"... The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia, which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine. ..."
"... US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such facts. ..."
"... US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets. One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS. ..."
"... This is : ..."
"... Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11. ..."
"... There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous to our nation's safety and freedom. ..."
"... A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list. ..."
"... An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf. Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced in the Slavic sphere as well as the west. ..."
"... The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them. ..."
"... I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans until late in the fifties. ..."
"... "Prorussian" Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic". ..."
"... But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy? ..."
"... A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression. ..."
"... I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption. ..."
"... What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. ..."
"... Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government. Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis. ..."
The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize
the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants
of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional
negotiations.
Who is the United States government and media supporting? The Nazis . You think I'm joking. Here are the facts, but we must go
back to World War II
:
When World War II began a large part of western Ukraine welcomed the German soldiers as liberators from the recently enforced
Soviet rule and openly collaborated with the Germans. The Soviet leader, Stalin, imposed policies that caused the deaths of almost
7 million Ukrainians in the 1930s--an era known as the Holomodor).
Ukrainian divisions, regiments and battalions were formed, such as SS Galizien, Nachtigal and Roland, and served under German
leadership. In the first few weeks of the war, more than 80 thousand people from the Galizien region volunteered for the SS Galizien,
which later known for its extreme cruelty towards Polish, Jewish and Russian people on the territory of Ukraine.
Members of these military groups came mostly from the organization of Ukrainian nationalists aka the OUN, which was founded in
1929. It's leader was Stepan Bandera, known then and today for his extreme anti-semitic and anti-communist views.
CIA documents just recently declassified show strong ties between US intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.
Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side
of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President.
And who were helping lead
this effort?
Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. Parubiy was the founder of the Social National
Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler's Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.
The Social National Party would go on to become Svoboda, the far-right nationalist party whose leader,
Oleh Tyahnybok was
one of the three most high profile leaders of the Euromaidan protests. . . .
Overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security is
Dmytro Yarosh , the leader of the Right
Sector – a group of hardline nationalist streetfighters, who
previously boasted they were ready for
armed struggle to free Ukraine.
The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology.
We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia,
which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our
eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine.
US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor
Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints
if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such
facts.
But Viktor Yushchenko is not an American who speaks a foreign language. He is very much a Ukrainian nationalist and steeped in
the anti-Semitism that dominates the ideology of western Ukraine. During the final months of his Presidency, Yushchenko made the
following declaration:
In conclusion I would like to say something that is long awaited by the Ukrainian patriots for many years I have signed a decree
for the unbroken spirit and standing for the idea of fighting for independent Ukraine. I declare Stepan Bandera a national hero of
Ukraine.
Without hesitation or shame, Yushchenko endorsed the legacy of Bandera, who had happily aligned with the Nazis in pursuit of his
own nationalist goals. Those goals, however, did not include Jews. And here is the ultimate irony--Bandera was born in Austria, not
the Ukraine. So much for ideological consistency.
US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open
and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets.
One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS.
This is :
a USAID program with other National Endowment for Democracy-affiliated groups: the National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs, the International Republican Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. In 2010, the reported disbursement
for CEPPS in Ukraine was nearly $5 million.
The program's efforts are described on the USAID website as providing "training for political party activists and locally elected
officials to improve communication with civic groups and citizens, and the development of NGO-led advocacy campaigns on electoral
and political process issues."
Anyone prepared to argue that it would be okay for Russia, through its Foreign Ministry, to contribute several million dollars
for training party activists in the United States?
What we do not know is how much money was being spent on covert activities directed and managed by the CIA. During the political
upheaval in April 2014 (Maidan 2), there was this news item:
Over the weekend, CIA director John Brennan travelled to Kiev, nobody knows exactly why, but some speculate that he intends to
open US intelligence resources to Ukrainian leaders about real-time Russian military maneuvers. The US has, thus far, refrained from
sharing such knowledge because Moscow is believed to have penetrated much of Ukraine's communications systems – and
Washington isn't about to hand over its surveillance secrets to the
Russians.
Do you think Americans would be outraged if the head of Russia's version of the CIA, the SVR or FSB, traveled quietly to the United
States to meet with Donald Trump prior to his election? I think that would qualify as meddling.
Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not
talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian
citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign
and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending
and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous
to our nation's safety and freedom.
Good post pt.. thanks... i never knew ''the wife of former President Viktor Yushchenko was an American citizen and former senior
official in the US State Department.'' That is informative.. i recall following this closely back in 2014.. the hypocrisy on display
in the usa at present is truly amazing and frightening at the same time.. it appears that the public can be cowed very easily..
On the twitters, you would be accused of "whatabouttism" - which is the crime of excusing Putin's diabolism by pointing out
American interference with the internal politics an elections of other nations. A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes
to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list.
An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the
Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi
state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf.
Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced
in the Slavic sphere as well as the west.
It's not only the US. The EU borg are also meddling. In my country we had a referendum about Ukraine. The population voted "Against"
on the question: "Are you for or against the Approval Act of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine?"
This was the only referendum that was done since it was implemented in 2015. A second one is being organized on the Intelligence
and Security Services which has controversial parts with regard to access to internet traffic.
This referendum will take place on March 21, 2018 and will probably be voted against because of the controversial elements
(in part because there is still living memory of our Eastern neighbors in the second world war)
These 2 will probably be the last. Our house of representatives have voted yesterday to end the referendum law (with a majority
vote of 76 out of 150 representatives!)
So much for democracy. The reason stated that the referendum was controversial (probably because they voted against the EU
borg). Interesting is that the proposal was done by the party that wanted the referendum as a principal point. This will almost
certainly ensure that the little respect left for traditional parties is gone and they will not be able to get a majority next
elections.
The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader
Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy
Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them.
I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the
victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority
of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people
from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans
until late in the fifties.
Even in the nineties anybody who travelled in Ukraine could feel the tension between East and West. The Russians were certainly
aware of it and mindful not to rip the country apart they cut the Ukrainians an enormous amount of slack. Of course they supported
"their" candidates and shoveled money into their insatiable throats. Only to be disappointed time and again. "Prorussian"
Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People
forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic".
Really the West should have been content with things as they were.
But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As
a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like
asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy?
Really the West (not only the US -the Eu is also guilty) is to blame. It is long past time to get down from the high horse
and stop spreading chaos and mayhem in the name of democracy,
An informative column. The coup & later developments soured me on the MSMedia. I'm an initiate into modern Russian
history: NATO in the Ukraine = WW3!
Some additional history:
A Ukrainian nation did not exist until after WW1; one piece was Russian, another Polish and another Austrian. The Holodomor
is exaggerated for political purposes; the actual number dead from famine appears to be 'only' 2M. It wasn't Soviet bloody mindedness,
it was Soviet agricultural mismanagement; collectivizing agriculture drops production.
They did this right before the great drought of the 1930s - remember the dustbowl. There was a famine in Kazakestan at the
same time; 1.5M died.
The Nazis raised 5 SS divisions out of the Ukraine. As the Germans were pushed back they ran night drops of ordnance into the
Ukraine as long as they could. The Soviets had to carry on divisional level counter insurgency until 1956. After the war, Gehlen,
Nazi intelligence czar, kept himself out of jail by turning over his files, routes & agents to the US. He also stoked anti Soviet
paranoia.
The Brits ended up with a whole Ukr SS division that they didn't want, so they gave it to Canada. Which is why Canada has such
cranky policy around the Ukraine!
A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers
of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk
This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression.
I'm sure you'd like us to ignore Bandera. I bet he liked children and dogs. Just like Hitler. Bandera was a genuine bad
guy. There is no rehabilitating that scourge on society. Nice try though.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your final comment is sarcasm. When you have two senior US Government officials
who will and will not constitute a foreign government, you have gone beyond meddling. It is worse.
The media is hysterical. Today, Putin's Facebook Bot Collaborator contacted the Kremlin before his mercenaries attacked Americans
in Syria.
I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This
is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption.
A World War is near. The realists are gone. The Moguls are pushing Donald Trump pull the trigger. Either in Syria with an assault
to destroy Hezbollah (Iran) for good or American trainers going over the top of trenches in Donbass in a centennial attack of
the dead.
Hallelujah and jubilation! We're in full agreement on this subject. What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A
remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's
bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval
base.
I would definitely want to see a full account of what support we provided to the nazi thugs of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor. We
have a long history of meddling, at least twice as long as the Soviet Union/Russia. But that does not mean we should stop investigating
the Russian interference in our 2016 election. Just stop hyperventilating over it. It no more deserves risking a war than our
continuing mutual espionage.
Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian
sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government.
Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis.
As a result of this rebellion, the Russian majority in Crimea overwhelming voted to leave the Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which
they had been part of for over 150-years. While our government continues to provide military aid to Israel, which used force of
arms take over the West Bank, it imposed sanctions against Russia when the people of Crimea voted to join their former countrymen.
Mind boggling.
"... What Clapper chokes on -- and avoids saying -- is that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of WMD either. Indeed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had put him in charge of the agency responsible for analyzing imagery of all kinds -- photographic, radar, infrared, and multispectral -- precisely so that the absence of evidence from our multi-billion-dollar intelligence collection satellites could be hidden, in order not to impede the planned attack on Iraq. That's why, as Clapper now admits, he had to find "what wasn't really there." ..."
Former DNI James Clapper had his own words read back to him by Ray McGovern, exposing his
role in justifying the Iraq invasion based on fraudulent intelligence.
... ... ...
Clapper was appointed Director of National Intelligence by President Barack Obama in June
2010, almost certainly at the prompting of Obama's intelligence confidant and Clapper friend
John Brennan, later director of the CIA. Despite Clapper's performance on Iraq, he was
confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Obama even allowed Clapper to keep his job for three and a
half more years after he admitted that he had lied under oath to that same Senate about the
extent of eavesdropping on Americans by the National Security Agency (NSA). He is now a
security analyst for CNN.
In his book, Clapper finally places the blame for the consequential fraud (he calls it "the
failure") to find the (non-existent) WMD "where it belongs -- squarely on the shoulders of the
administration members who were pushing a narrative of a rogue WMD program in Iraq and on
the intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help that we found what wasn't
really there." (emphasis added ) .
So at the event on Tuesday I stood up and asked him about that. It was easy, given the
background Clapper himself provides in his book, such as:
"The White House aimed to justify why an invasion of and regime change in Iraq were
necessary, with a public narrative that condemned its continued development of weapons of
mass destruction [and] its support to al-Qaida (for which the Intelligence Community had no
evidence)."
What Clapper chokes on -- and avoids saying -- is that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of
WMD either. Indeed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had put him in charge of the agency
responsible for analyzing imagery of all kinds -- photographic, radar, infrared, and
multispectral -- precisely so that the absence of evidence from our multi-billion-dollar
intelligence collection satellites could be hidden, in order not to impede the planned attack
on Iraq. That's why, as Clapper now admits, he had to find "what wasn't really there."
Members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) who have employed Clapper
under contract, or otherwise known his work, caution that he is not the sharpest knife in the
drawer. So, to be fair, there is an outside chance that Rumsfeld persuaded him to be guided by
the (in)famous Rumsfeld dictum: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
But the consequences are the same: a war of aggression with millions dead and wounded;
continuing bedlam in the area; and no one -- high or low -- held accountable. Hold your breath
and add Joe Biden awarding the "Liberty Medal" to George W. Bush on Veteran's Day.
' Shocked'
Protection Racquet , November 17, 2018 at 02:46
When did this perjurer before Congress have any credibility? The guys a professional
liar.
Mild -ly Facetious , November 18, 2018 at 17:27
The guy is a professional liar,and
a member of The Establishment
"The Anglo-American Establishment"
Copyright 1981/ Books in Focus, Inc,
Vallejo D , November 19, 2018 at 21:15
No shit. I saw the video of Clapper perjuring himself to the US Congress on national
television, bald-face lying about the NSA clocking our emails.
I wouldn't believe Clapper if he the sky is blue and grass is green. EPIC liar.
PS: Erstwhile national security state "friend" actually had the nerve to claim that
"Clapper lied to protect you." As if. My bet is that ONLY people on the planet who didn't
know about the NSA's grotesque criminal were the American taxpayers.
Mild -ly Facetious , November 20, 2018 at 12:38
RECALL THIS EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENT -- from the GW Bush administration
There was, however, one valuable insight. In a soon-to-be-infamous passage, the writer,
Ron Suskind, recounted a conversation between himself and an unnamed senior adviser to the
president:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which
he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of
discernable reality."
I nodded and murmured something about Enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me
off.
"That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now,
and when we act, we create reality. And while you are studying that reality –
judiciously, as you will – we'll act again creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you,
will be left to just study what we do."
Anonymot , November 16, 2018 at 20:56
Mild -ly - Facetious , November 18, 2018 at 19:33
Anonymot , Yes!
Here Is A Sequence of books for those who reside in chosen darkness:
"The Lessons of History" by Will & Edith Durant – c. 1968
"The Anglo-American Establishment" by Carroll Quigley – c. 1981
"Understanding Special Operations" by David T. Ratcliffe – c. 1989 / 99
" The Secret War Against The Jews" by John Loftus and Mark Aarons c. 1994
Douglas Baker , November 16, 2018 at 19:42
Thanks Ray. The clap merry-go-round in Washington, D.C., with V.D. assaulting brain
integrity has been long playing there with James Clapper another hand in, in favor of the
continuation of those that direct the United States' war on world from Afghanistan to Syria,
staying the course of firing up the world as though Northern California's Camp fire sooting up
much of the state with air borne particulate matter and leaving death and destruction in its
wake.
JRGJRG , November 16, 2018 at 19:29
All this is fine, except it dares not touch the still taboo subject among these
"professionals" of how all of this started getting justified in the first place when America
attacked itself on September 11, 2001 in New York City and Washington in the most sophisticated
and flawed false flag attack in history, murdering thousands of its own citizens Operation
Northwoods style, blaming it on 19 Saudi hijackers with box cutters, the most grandiose of all
conspiracy theory, the official 911 story.
The incriminating evidence of what happened that day in 2001 is now absolutely overwhelming,
but still too incredible and controversial for even these esteemed folks to come to grips with.
If we're going to take a shower and clean all this excrement off ourselves, let's do it
thoroughly.
JRGJRG , November 16, 2018 at 19:46
In fact, wait! Let's ask the really important question of Clapper.
What was he doing and where was he on 9/11, the "New Pearl Harbor," and what was his role in
the coverup and transformation of the CIA in the ensuing years?
Why doesn't Ray ask him about that?
GKJames , November 16, 2018 at 06:46
(1) One needn't be a Clapper fan to say that he was merely a cog in a body politic that (a)
lives and breathes using military force to "solve" geopolitical problems; and (b) has always
been driven by the national myth of American exceptionalism and the American love of war. The
only issue ever is the story Americans tell themselves as to why a particular assault on some
benighted country that can't meaningfully shoot back is justified. But for that, there are
countless clever people in the corridors of power and the Infotainment Complex always eager to
spread mendacity for fun and profit. Sure, hang Clapper, but if justice is what you're after,
you'd quickly run out of rope and wood.
(2) What doesn't compute: Clapper is quoted as saying that he and cohort "were so eager to
help that [they] found what wasn't really there". That's followed by: "Rumsfeld put him in
charge so that the absence of evidence could be hidden . Clapper now admits [that] he had to
find 'what wasn't really there'". While Rumsfeld's intent was exactly that, i.e., to prevent a
narrative that he and Cheney had contrived, that's not the same as Rumsfeld's explicitly
instructing Clapper et al to do that. Further, it mischaracterizes Clapper's admission. He
doesn't admit that "he had to find" what wasn't there (which would suggest prior intent). What
he does admit is that the eagerness to please the chain of command resulted in "finding" what
didn't exist. One is fraud, the other group-think; two very different propositions. The latter,
of course, has been the hallmark of US foreign policy for decades, though the polite (but
accurate) word for it is "consensus". Everybody's in on it: the public, Congress, the press,
and even the judiciary. By and large, it's who Americans are.
(3) Does this really equate the WMD fiasco with the alleged "desperate [attempt] to blame
Trump's victory on Russian interference"? Yes, Clapper was present in 2003 and 2016. But that's
a thin reed. First, no reasonable person says that Russian interference was the only reason
that Clinton lost. Second, to focus on what was said in January 2017 ignores the US
government's notifying various state officials DURING THE CAMPAIGN in 2016, of Russian hacking
attempts. If, as is commonly said, the Administration was convinced that Clinton would win, how
could hacking alerts to the states have been part of an effort to explain away an election
defeat that hadn't happened yet, and which wasn't ever expected to happen? And, third, as with
WMDs, Clapper wasn't out there on his own. While there were, unsurprisingly, different views
among intelligence officials as to the extent of the Russian role, there was broad agreement
that there had been one. Once again, fraud vs. group-think.
Skip Scott , November 16, 2018 at 13:46
I think there is a big difference between "group think" and inventing and cherry picking
intelligence to fit policy objectives. I believe there is ample evidence of fraud. The "dodgy
dossier" and the yellow cake uranium that led to Plame being exposed as a CIA operative are two
examples that come immediately to mind. "Sexed up" intelligence is beyond groupthink. It is the
promoting of lies and the deliberate elimination of any counter narrative in order to justify
an unjust war.
The same could be said of the "all 17 intelligence agencies" statement about RussiaGate that
was completely debunked but remained the propaganda line. It was way more than "groupthink". It
was a lie. It is part of "full spectrum dominance".
I do agree that "Clapper wasn't out there on his own". He is part of a team with an agenda,
and in a just world they'd all be in prison.
It wasn't "mistaken" intelligence, or "groupthink". You are trying to put lipstick on a
pig.
GKJames , November 17, 2018 at 07:21
Fraud is easy to allege, hard to prove. In the case of Iraq, it's important to accept that
virtually everyone -- the Administration, the press, the public, security agencies in multiple
countries, and even UN inspectors (before the inspections, obviously) -- ASSUMED that Saddam
had WMDs. That assumption wasn't irrational; it was based on Saddam's prior behavior. No
question, the Administration wanted to invade Iraq and the presumed-to-exist WMDs were the
rationale. It was only when evidence appeared that the case for it wasn't rock-solid that
Cheney et al went to work. (The open question is whether they began to have their own doubts or
whether it never occurred to them, given their obsession.) But there is zero evidence that
anyone was asked to conclude that Saddam had WMDs even though the Americans KNEW that there
weren't any. That's where the group-think and weak-kneed obeisance to political brawlers like
Cheney come in. All he had to do was bark, and everyone fell in line, not because they knew
there were no WMDs, but because they weren't sure but the boss certainly was.
In that environment, what we saw from Clapper and his analysts wasn't fraud but weakness of
character, not to mention poor-quality analysis. And maybe that gets to the bigger question to
which there appears to be an allergy: Shouting Fraud! effectively shuts down the conversation.
After all, once you've done that, there's not much else to say; these guys all lied and death
and destruction followed. But what if the answer is just as likely that the national security
state created by Truman has grown into something uncontrollable, beyond legitimate oversight by
the people it's supposed to serve? What if the people in that business aren't all that clever,
let alone principled? After all, the CIA is headed by a torture aficionada and we haven't heard
peep from the employee base, let alone the Congress that confirmed her. That entire ecosystem
has been permitted to flourish without adult supervision for decades. Whenever someone asks,
"that's classified". What do you do when Americans as a whole are perfectly fine with that?
Sam F , November 18, 2018 at 08:17
But fraud from the top was shown very well by Bamford in his book Pretext For War. Where
discredited evidence was retained by intel agencies, as in the Iraq War II case, traitors like
the zionist Wolfowitz simply installed known zionist warmongers Perl, Feith, and Wurmser into
"stovepipe" offices at CIA, DIA, NSA to send the known-bad "evidence" to Rumsfeld &
Cheney.
Skip Scott , November 18, 2018 at 09:27
They seem to conveniently classify anything that could prove illegality such as fraud, or in
the case of the JFK assassination, something much worse. They use tools such as redaction and
classification not only to protect "national security", but to cover up their crimes.
"But what if the answer is just as likely that the national security state created by Truman
has grown into something uncontrollable, beyond legitimate oversight by the people it's
supposed to serve?"
I believe this is very much the case, but that doesn't preclude fraud as part of their
toolkit. The people at the top of the illegalities are clever enough to use those less sharp
(like Clapper) for their evil purposes, and if necessary, to play the fall guy. And although
the Intelligence Agencies are supposed to serve "We the People", they are actually serving
unfettered Global Capitalism and the .1% that are trying to rule the world. This has been the
case from its onset.
Furthermore, I am an American, and I am definitely NOT FINE with the misuse of
classification and redaction to cover up crimes. The way to fix the "entire ecosystem" is to
start to demand it by prosecuting known liars like James Clapper, and to break up the MSM
monopoly so people get REAL news again, and wake people up until they refuse to support the two
party system.
GKJames , November 19, 2018 at 10:20
(1) Assuming you could find a DOJ willing to prosecute and a specific statute on which to
bring charges, the chance of conviction is zero because the required fraudulent intent can't be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. All the defendant would have to say is, We thought WMDs were
there but it turned out we were wrong. Besides, the lawyers said it's all legal. And if you
went after Clapper only, he'd argue (successfully) that it was a highly selective prosecution.
(2) If you're going to create a whole new category of criminal liability for incompetence
and/or toadyism and careerism, Langley corridors would quickly empty. It's certainly one way to
reduce the federal workforce. (3) The intelligence agencies ARE serving "We the People". There
isn't anything they do that doesn't have the blessing of duly elected representatives in
Congress. (4) That you, yourself, are "NOT FINE" overlooks the reality that your perspective
gets routinely outvoted, though not because of "evil" or "fraud". A Clapper behind bars would
do zero to change that. Why? Because most Americans ARE fine with the status quo. That's not a
function of news (fake or real); Americans are drowning in information. Like all good service
providers, the media are giving their customers exactly what they want to hear.
Skip Scott , November 19, 2018 at 11:25
GK-
(1) It is you who is "assuming" that fraud could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
What if evidence was presented that showed that they didn't really think there were WMD's, but
were consciously lying to justify an invasion. I agree that it would be nearly impossible to
find a DOJ willing to prosecute within our corrupted government, but if we could get a 3rd
party president to sign on to the ICC, we could ship a bunch of evil warmongers off to the
Hague. (2) As already discussed, I don't buy the representation of their actions as mere
"toadyism". (3) As shown by many studies, our duly elected representatives serve lobbyists and
the .1%, not "We the People". Here's one from Princeton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
(4) From your earlier post: "What do you do when Americans as a whole are perfectly fine with
that?" Since I am part of the "whole", your statement is obviously false. And Americans are
drowning in MISinformation from our MSM, and that is a big part of the problem. And please
provide evidence that most Americans are fine with the status quo. Stating that I get routinely
outvoted when many Americans see their choice as between a lesser of two evils, and our MSM
keeps exposure of third party viewpoints to a minimum, is an obvious obfuscation.
Sam F , November 16, 2018 at 21:01
I will second Skip on that.
The groupthink of careerists is not "who Americans are."
"Broad agreement" on an obvious fraud is a group lie.
What Clapper did was fraud. What went on in his head was group-think. The two are by no
means incompatible. The man admits to outright fabrication-
"my team also produced computer-generated images of trucks fitted out as 'mobile production
facilities used to make biological agents.' Those images, possibly more than any other
substantiation he presented, carried the day with the international community and Americans
alike."
He knew exactly what he was doing.
wootendw , November 15, 2018 at 22:41
"Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents
related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria "
Syria and Iraq became bitter enemies in 1982 when Syria backed Iran during the Iran-Iraq
War. Syria even sent troops to fight AGAINST Saddam during the first Iraq War. Syria and Iraq
did not restore diplomatic relations until after Saddam was captured. The idea that Saddam
would send WMDs (if he had them) to Syria is ludicrous.
Zhu , November 15, 2018 at 20:54
Cheney wanted to steal the oil. Bush wanted to fulfill prophecy & make Jesus Rapture him
away from his problems. Neither plan worked.
Zhu , November 15, 2018 at 20:50
Our big shots never suffer for their crimes against humanity. Occasionally a Lt. Calley will
get a year in jail for a massacre, but that's it.
bostonblackie , November 16, 2018 at 13:54
Calley was placed under house arrest at Fort Benning, where he served three and a half
years.
JRGJRG , November 16, 2018 at 19:16
That's like less than 2.5 days served per each defenseless My Lai villager slaughtered,
massacred, in cold blood.
What kind of justice is that? Who gets away with murder that way?
Helen Marshall , November 15, 2018 at 17:41
While serving in an embassy in 2003, the junior officer in my office was chatting with the
long-time local employee, after viewing the Powell Shuck and Jive. One said to the other, "the
US calls North Korea part of the 'Axis of Evil' but doesn't attack it because there is clear
evidence that it has WMD including nukes." And the other said "yes, and that's why the US is
going to invade Iraq because we know they don't." QED
John Flanagan , November 16, 2018 at 22:25
Love this comment!
Taras 77 , November 15, 2018 at 16:36
Thanks, Ray, for an excellent article!
You are one of few who are calling out these treasonous bastards. I am still .waiting for at
least some of them to do the perp walk, maybe in the presence of war widows, their children,
and maimed war veterans.
Clapper played the central role in deceiving America into abandoning the republic and
becoming the genocidal empire now terrorizing Planet Earth. If it is too late; if the criminals
have permanent control of our government, there won't be a cleansing Nuremberg Tribunal, and
our once-great USA will continue along its course of death and destruction until it destroys
itself.
Where are our patriots? If any exist, now is the time for a new Nuremberg.
Zhu , November 15, 2018 at 20:56
The genocidal empire goes back to 1950 the Korean War.
bostonblackie , November 16, 2018 at 13:58
How about 1945 and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
JRGJRG , November 16, 2018 at 19:08
Keep going. Further back than that.
How about the Spanish American War, justified by the false flag blowing up of the Maine in
Havana Harbor, which led to the four-year genocidal war against Filipino rebels and the war
against the Cubans?
How about the 19th Century genocide of Native Americans? What was that justified by, except for
lust for conquest of territory and racism?
How about America's role with other western colonial powers in the 1900 Boxer Rebellion in
China.
The list of American violations of international law is too long to restate here, in the
hundreds.
The only way out of this moral dilemma is to turn a new page in history in a new
administration, hold our war criminals in the dock, and make amends under international law,
and keep them, somehow without sacrificing national jurisdiction or security. America has to be
reformed as an honest broker of peace instead of the world's leading pariah terrorist
state.
bostonblackie , November 17, 2018 at 16:29
How about slavery? America was founded on genocide and slavery!
Skip Scott , November 15, 2018 at 09:44
I think Ray is being a little overly optimistic about Clapper being travel restricted.
Universal Jurisdiction is for the small fry. Even with Bush and Rumsfeld, their changing travel
plans was probably more about possible "bad press" than actual prosecution. Maybe down the
road, when the USA collapse is more obvious to our "vassals" and they start to go their own
way, such a thing could happen. Even then, we've got tons of armaments, and a notoriously itchy
trigger finger.
My hope is that the two party system collapses and a Green Party candidate gets elected
president. He or she could then sign us on to the ICC, and let the prosecutions begin. I know
it's delusional, but a guy's gotta dream.
Robert Emmett , November 15, 2018 at 08:52
It occurs to me that even given Cheney's infamous 1% doctrine, these no-goodniks couldn't
even scratch together enough of a true story to pass that low bar. So they invented, to put it
mildly, plausible scenarios, cranked-up the catapults of propaganda and flung them in our faces
via the self-absorbed, self-induced, money grubbing fake patriots of mass media.
But, geez, Ray, it's not as if we didn't already know about fixing facts around the policy,
resignations of career operatives because of politicizing intelligence, reports of Scott
Ritter, plus the smarmy lying faces & voices of all the main actors in the Cheney-Rumsfeld
generated mass hysteria. I doubt these types of reveals, though appreciatively confirming what
we already know, will change very many minds now. After all, the most effective war this cabal
has managed to wage has been against their own people.
Perhaps when these highfalutin traitors, treasonous to their oaths to protect the founding
principles they swore to preserve, at last shuffle off their mortal coils, future generations
will gain the necessary perspective to dismiss these infamous liars with the contempt they
deserve. But that's just wishful thinking because by then the incidents that cranked-up this
never-ending war likely will be the least of their worries.
In the meantime, the fact that this boiled egghead continues to spew his Claptrap on a major
media channel tells you all you need to know about how deeply the poison of the Bush-Cheney era
has seeped into the body politic and continues to eat away at what remains of the foundations
while the military-media-government-corporate complex metastasizes.
Sam F , November 15, 2018 at 21:03
Ray knows that the well-informed know much of the story, and likely writes to bring us the
Clapper memoir confession and summarize for the less informed.
I am always glad to see confirmation in such matters, however, for people who work to inform
themselves and think critically, there are no real surprises to be discovered about the
invasion of Iraq.
It could be clearly seen as a fraud at the time because there were a number of experts,
experts not working for the American government, who in effect told us then that it was a
fraud.
What the whole experience with Iraq reveals is a couple of profound truths about imperial
America, truths that are quite unpleasant and yet seem to remain lost to the general
public.
One, lying and manipulation are virtually work-a-day activities in Washington. They go on at
all levels of the government, from the President through all of the various experts and agency
heads who in theory hold their jobs to inform the President and others of the truth in making
decisions.
Indeed, these experts and agency heads actually work more like party members from George
Orwell's Oceania in 1984, party members whose job it is to constantly rewrite history, making
adjustments in the words and pictures of old periodicals and books to conform with the Big
Brother's latest pronouncements and turns in policy.
America has an entire industry devoted to manufacturing truth, something the rather feeble
term "fake news" weakly tries to capture.
The public's reaction to officials and agencies in Washington ought to be quite different
than it generally is. It should be a presumption that they are not telling the truth, that they
are tailoring a story to fit a policy. It sounds extreme to say so, but it truly is not in view
of recent history.
We are all watching actors in a costly play used to support already-determined destructive
policies.
Two, the press lies, and it lies almost constantly in support of government's decided
policies. You simply cannot trust the American press on such matters, and the biggest names in
the press – the New York Times or Washington Post or CBS or NBC – are the biggest
liars because they put the weight of their general prestige into the balance to tip it.
Their fortunes and interests are too closely bound to government to be in the least trusted
for objective journalism. Journalism just does not exist in America on the big stuff.
This support is not just done on special occasions like the run-up to the illegal invasion
of Iraq but consistently in the affairs of state. We see it today in everything from
"Russia-gate" to the Western-induced horrors of Syria. Russia-gate is almost laughable,
although few Americans laugh, but a matter like Syria, with more than half a million dead and
terrible privations, isn't laughable, yet no effort is made to explain the truth and bring this
monstrous project – the work equally of Republicans and Democrats – to an end.
Three, while virtually all informed people know that Israel's influence in Washington is
inordinate and inappropriate, many still do not realize that the entire horror of Iraq, just
like the horror today of Syria, reflects the interests and demands of Israel.
George Bush made a rarely-noticed, when Ariel Sharon was lobbying him to attack other Middle
Eastern countries following the Iraq invasion, along the lines of, "Geez, what does the guy
want? I invaded Iraq for him, didn't I?"
Well, today, pretty much all of the countries that Sharon thought should be attacked have
indeed been attacked by the United States and its associates in one fashion or another –
covertly, as in Syria, or overtly, as in Libya. And we are all witnessing the ground being
prepared for Iran.
It has been a genuinely terrifying period, the last decade and a half or so. War after war
with huge numbers of innocents killed, vast damages inflicted, and armies of unfortunate
refugees created. All of it completely unnecessary. All of it devoid of ethics or principles
beyond the principle of "might makes right."
It simply cannot be distinguished, except by order of magnitude, from the grisly work of
Europe's fascist governments of the 1930s and '40s.
All the discussions we read or see from America about truth in journalism, about truth in
government, and about founding principles are pretty much distraction and noise, meaningless
noise. The realities of what America is doing in the world make it so.
Sam F , November 15, 2018 at 20:56
Very true.
tpmco , November 16, 2018 at 02:48
Great comment.
john Wilson , November 15, 2018 at 04:47
It seems to me that showing up the blatant lies of the Iraq affair, while laudable, doesn't
really get us anywhere. The guilty are never and will never be brought to account for their
heinous crimes and some of the past villains are still lying, scheming, and brining about war,
terror and horror today.
If the white helmets in Syria, the lies about Libya, the West engineered coupé in The
Ukraine, Yemen, etc, aren't all tactics from the same play book used by the criminal cabals of
the Iraq time, then we are blind. These days, the liars in the deep state, an expression which
encapsulates everything from Intel to think tanks, don't even try to tell plausible lies, they
just say anything and MSM cheers them on. Anyone challenging the MSM/government/deep state etc
are just ridiculed and called conspiracy theorists, no matter how obvious and ludicrous the
lies are.
Sam F , November 15, 2018 at 06:26
In fact "showing up the blatant lies of the Iraq affair" informs others, to whom the MSM can
no longer cheer on liars, nor ridicule truth. Truth telling, like contemplation, is essential
before the point of action.
Randal , November 15, 2018 at 02:38
I remember a woman reporter saying the reason we invaded Iraq was because Sadam Husien had
put a bounty on the Bush family for running him out of qwait. This was a personal revenge to
take out Husien before he had a chance at the Bush's. Any way the reporter was silenced very
quickly. I personally believe the allegation.
You have my complete and total respect Mr. McGovern. That was beautiful! Thank you.
F. G. Sanford , November 15, 2018 at 01:33
"We drew on all of NIMA's skill sets and it was all wrong."
Every time I hear the term, "skill sets", I recall a military colleague who observed, "We
say skill sets so we don't have to say morons." They used to say, "The military doesn't pay you
to think." Now they say, "We have skill sets." It's a euphemism for robotized automatons who
perform specific standardized tasks based on idealized training requirements which evolve from
whatever the latest abstract military doctrine happens to be. And, they come up with new ones
all the time.
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is a phrase Rumsfeld borrowed
directly – and I'm not making this up – from the UFO community. It was apparently
first uttered by Carl Sagan, and then co-opted by people like Stanton Friedman. He's the guy
who claims we recovered alien bodies from flying saucers at Roswell, New Mexico. The scientific
antidote to the "absence of evidence" argument is, of course, "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof." Simply put, absence of evidence really just means "no evidence". A
hypothesis based on "no evidence" constitutes magical thinking.
It's probably worth going to Youtube and looking up a clip called "Stephen Gets a Straight
Answer Out of Donald Rumsfeld". He admits to Colbert that, "If it was true, we wouldn't call it
intelligence." Frankly, Clapper's gravest sin is heading up a science-based agency like NIMA,
but failing to come to the same conclusion as General Albert Stubblebine. People who analyze
reconnaissance imagery are supposed to be able to distinguish explosive ordnance damage from
other factors. But, I guess Newtonian Physics is "old school" to this new generation of magical
thinkers and avant-garde intelligence analysts.
Sam F , November 16, 2018 at 10:44
Part of the problem of "intelligence" is its reliance upon images that show a lot of detail
but without any definite meaning, and upon guesses to keep managers and politicians happy. So
"expert assessments" that milk trucks in aerial photos might be WMD labs became agency
"confidence" and then politician certainties, never verified.
When suspect evidence was retained by intel agencies, as in the Iraq War II case, traitors
like the zionist Wolfowitz simply installed known zionist warmongers Perl, Feith, and Wurmser
into "stovepipe" offices at CIA, DIA, NSA to send the non-evidence to Rumsfeld. See Bamford's
Pretext For War.
Gen Dau , November 14, 2018 at 22:20
Thank you, Ray, for a very good article that treats Clapper objectively and not as a
demi-god, as most of the MSM and the Democratic establishment does. It is totally unacceptable
for a government official, current or former, to answer "I don't know." That is the hideout of
irresponsible scoundrels. Questioners should be allowed to ask follow-up questions such as, "If
you didn't know, did you try to think about why the President's opinion on this very important
question was different from yours? Is simply not knowing acceptable for an intel officer,
especially one in a leadership position?" I look forward to your further reports and
analyses.
Thanks also to the editors for returning at least the main text to a readable font. But why
not go whole hog and make reading everything a pleasure again? Putting the headlines in a
hard-to-read and distracting font is especially unfortunate, since some casual visitors to
Consortium News may be turned off by the headlines and skip reading the very important articles
attached to the headlines.
According to my calculations (admittedly simplistic), the world has past the point of peak
oil and in aggregate cannot produce enogh oil to meet present and future demand and that may
very well be why the US is doing its best to destroy or damage as many economies in the world
as it can even if it has to go to war to do it. Once it becomes well established that we are
past peak oil no telling what our financial markets will look like. Would appreciate hearing
from someone who has more expertise than I have. https://www.gpln.com
anon4d2s , November 14, 2018 at 22:23
Why are you trying to change the subject? Please desist.
I'm offering you the, or a, motive of why the deep state is pursuing the agendas we see
unfolding, which is to say, the crimes, the lies, the treason that the likes of Clapper, Bush,
Obama, Clinton and others are pursuing to cover up their reaction to their own fears. Of course
9/11, the false flag coup and smoking gun that proves my point is still the big elephant in the
room and will eventually bring us down if the truth is never released from its chains.
I didn't change the subject. I'm offering you an answer as to the motive of why so many
officials are willing to trash the Constitution in order to accomplish their insane agendas.
It's all about money and power and the terrified Deep State fear of facing the blowback from
the lies that have been propagated by the government and media regarding just about everything.
Here's another place you might want to look in addition to my website: https://youtu.be/CDpE-30ilBY It's not just about oil. But
this is where the rubber's going to meet the road. This is about what's going to hit the fan at
any moment and in the absence of the Truth, we are all going to face this unprepared. 9/11 is
still the smoking gun. It not just a few liars and cheats we're talking about.
I didn't change the subject. The purpose of the search for WMD was to misdirect the public's
attention away from the real purpose of the invasion which was to gain control of Iraq's oil
reserves primarily. Misdirection is primary skill used by those in power and very
effectively.
Thanks, as always, go out to Ray for his continued bravery in speaking truth to power. I
remember years ago when David McMichaels, Ex-CIA, gave a talk at Ft Lewis College in Durango,
CO, about Ronnie Reagan's corruption in what the US was doing to the elected government in
Nicaragua. Thanks to both of these men for trying to inform us all about the corruption so
rampant in our government. This is further proof that Trump is only a small pimple on top of
the infectous boil that is our government.
Sam F , November 14, 2018 at 21:52
Hurray for Ray McGovern! A beautiful and superbly-planned confrontation. We are lucky that
Clapper admitted these things in his memoir, but we needed you to bring that out in public with
full and well-selected information. You are truly a gem, whom I hope someday to meet.
Sam F , November 14, 2018 at 22:19
An astounding revelation of systematic delusion in secret agencies.
But until now my best source on the Iraq fake WMD has been Bamford's Pretext For War, in
which he establishes that zionist DefSec Wolfowitz appointed three known zionist operatives
Perl, Wurmser, and Feith to "stovepipe" known-bad info to Rumsfeld et al. Does the memoir shed
any light there, and does your information agree?
mike k , November 14, 2018 at 19:58
Spies lie constantly, they have no respect for the truth. To trust a spy is a sign of
dangerous gullibility. Spies are simply criminals for hire.
Gen Dau , November 14, 2018 at 22:30
Yes, I also hope our replies will be in a more civil and less reader-hostile font. The same
font as the article text would be fine.
dfnslblty , November 15, 2018 at 09:59
I would offer that spies do not lie ~ they gather information.
Spy masters do lie ~ they prevaricate to fit the needs of their masters.
Tomonthebeach , November 15, 2018 at 23:48
To paraphrase in a way that emphasizes the deja vu. Trump lies constantly, he has no respect
for the truth. To trust Trump is a sign of dangerous gullibility. Trump is simply a crook for
hire, and it would seem that Putin writes the checks.
anon4d2s , November 16, 2018 at 10:48
Gosh, you fooled everyone so easily with standard Dem zionist drivel!
Why not admit that every US politician is bought, including Dems?
Don't forget to supply your unique evidence of Russian tampering.
Mild-ly - Facetious , November 18, 2018 at 16:44
"Clapper's Credibility Collapses"
as does Colin Powell's U.N.BULL Spit Yellow Cake propaganda/
all that's required is a Sales Pitch to everyday striving citizens into
how a brutal strain of aristocrat have come to rule america
and how you must delve into the Back-Stories of, for example,
GHW Bush CIA connection and his presents in Dallas, 1963
credibility collapses abound under weight of 'what really happened'
after Chaney convened summit of oil executives just PRIOR to 9/11?
Looking at Pelosi's statements and methods, it would appear that the process left Democrats
looking extremely partisan to the detriment of getting the business of the country done. That
business included the USMCA, the Mexico-Canada Agreement that redefines a host of matters
previously mishandled by Bill Clinton's tremendously unpopular NAFTA. Why this seems to be the
case – Trump was in the process of getting his USMCA through congress, and with high
support from organized labor. As we consistently explain, Democrats rely on organized labor not
only for votes, but more critically for their entire ground campaigns, especially making phone
calls to other voters, and precinct walking during the campaign and on Election Day. That labor
always opposed NAFTA and generally supports the USMCA is critical. The key line in Pelosi's
post impeachment charade statement, regarding why they were not actually going to send the
articles to the Senate and therefore complete the process of impeaching the president, was that
she said specifically that they needed instead to prioritize passing the USMCA.
Imagine that for a moment. Because of the relationship between labor and the Democrat Party,
it was necessary for Democrats to appear as its champion, even that it was their idea in the
first place. This means that Democrats had the practical wisdom to understand that their
impeachment charade did not appeal to blue collar Democrat voters, but in fact would work
against them. What they needed in part in the impeachment, apart from implementing their
strategy of a thousand cuts, was to energize college educated upper middle-class boomers, which
form the bulk of the Rachel Maddow, and Democrat leaning mainstream media consumer demographic.
While these people control work-place politics and effectively police water-cooler talk, this
back-fires. Voting in the US is secret ballot – and so with this class in control of
people's ability to remain employed, unenthusiastic, rehearsed, regurgitated, manufactured
'orange man bad' utterances are more commonly heard than they are truly believed. People say
one thing at work to keep their job, and then vote another way on Election Day.
But the USMCA fiasco surrounding the impeachment tells us a lot. Eight years of Bill Clinton
and decades of his NAFTA has been symptomatic of the Democrat's anti-labor politics. Democrats
from that time onward invested their political capital into developing socialism. However, they
didn't develop this in the US, but in China – while in the US a crony class grew up and
lined their own pockets from it all. This is something which is perhaps, in a strange turn of
events, quite good for China and many other developing parts of the world including Africa. But
that has come at the expense not of America's wealthy 'bourgeoisie', but rather its own
'working class'. Bill Clinton was supposed to work to reverse 12 years of Reagan-Bush, whose
anti-labor policies amounted to one of the single greatest austerity campaigns in US history.
And yet this was only to be outdone by Clinton's outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs, and
deregulation of the financial sector.
What has shown to matter least of all, and especially where Trump is concerned, are polls.
And even here too, polls – when read correctly – point to a Trump victory.
There are also reasons why left-wing Democrats like documentary film maker Michael Moore
also understand that Trump is likely to win. Needless to say, his fixation therefore on an
impeachment succeeding, and his blanket support for Nancy Pelosi's absurd and failing strategy,
is also why even progressive Democrats like Sanders fail to understand why Trump is unbeatable.
Their placing hopes in impeachment isn't so much that impeachment is viable or likely, but from
a sober and scientific approach, it's only more likely than an electoral defeat of Trump at the
polls given that the party stubbornly insists on promoting Biden and Buttigieg.
"It's the economy, stupid"
Sure, it will always be argued that the improved economy under Trump was in fact either
related to impersonal forces of the global economy unrelated to Trump; sun spots, the invisible
hand, or Obama policies whose fruits we are now only reaping. But voters never go for this
reasoning. Partisans do, but voters don't.
Democrats at best are going to point out that while employment numbers have improved, 'never
before have so many earned so little'. And while that's true, we are dealing with a badly
bruised and insecure American working class. Things right now appear to be going in the right
direction, and so being able to find work even if it's a lower salary than they had before
their several-year unemployed stint, they are literally thanking the heavens, the stars, and
even Trump, that today they have any job at all. And even here, Trump's tax cuts put a few
thousand dollars back in the pockets of households where the average combined income is about
$70k. His even larger, but targeted, tax cuts for the rich in certain areas, due to the
economic growth these cuts in part inspired, resulted in more tax revenues overall.
And yes, we get it –
old black people like Biden . At least mainstream media reports on certain polls, whose
methodologies we can't see, report as much. What did that question actually look like? We think
the push-poll went something like: "In the coming election, would you support Obama's good
friend and Vice President , a gay mayor, a neurotic Jew, a Hindu veteran who may have
PTSD, Pocahontas, or a Chinaman good at math? Obama's VP was Biden. Will you vote for Biden?
Y/N".
But still this figure is misleading, and doesn't relate to Biden's electability, but is
supposed to get past this trope that he's a racist – a meme trending surrounding the
first few debates. Older black voters won't turn swing-states, and older black voters aren't
part of an energized or energizing electorate for new voters. This means that the media's
reportage cycle on this 'factoid' is about virtue signaling to the above mentioned Rachel
Maddow demographic that Biden is ' progressive since black people like him '. Oh,
you don't like Biden? Well black people like Biden. Don't you like black people?
And our jokingly hypothetical poll question aside, the reality isn't far off. This targeted
poll of black voters relates almost entirely back to labor union activism. The DNC controls
organized labor, and Biden is the DNC's choice. Black workers are extraordinarily
over-represented in the public sector, and the public sector is extraordinarily
over-represented in union membership. Older people are more likely to be involved in activism
in their labor union, and as a consequence, older black people trend towards Biden more than
other candidates. This factoid may trend well right now in media, but will have nothing to do
with the outcome of the election except that it will guarantee Trump's victory if Biden is the
Democrat nominee.
And so we have it, our three primary reasons Trump will win: the lack of enthusiasm for the
DNC's picks, the increasing enthusiasm among Trump supporters which will be contagious (again),
and the economic growth which, while favoring the rich, in fact did in this case 'trickle
down'.
"With each passing day of the impeachment crisis, the distance between the official reasons
for the conflict in Washington and the real reasons grows wider.
It has become increasingly clear that the central issue is not Trump's attempt to "solicit
interference from a foreign country" by "pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of
the president's main domestic political rivals," as alleged in the whistleblower complaint
that triggered the impeachment inquiry.
Rather, the conflict raging within the state centers on Trump's decision to temporarily delay
a massive weapons shipment to Ukraine.
The ferocity with which the entire US national security apparatus responded to the delay
raises the question: Is there a timetable for using these weapons in combat to fight a war
against Russia?
A New York Times front-page exposé published Monday, coming in at 5,000 words and
bearing six bylines, makes it clear that Trump's decision to withhold military aid -- over a
month before his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky -- triggered the conflict that
led to the president's impeachment.
As the Times reports, "Mr. Trump's order to hold $391 million worth of sniper rifles,
rocket-propelled grenades, night vision goggles, medical aid and other equipment the
Ukrainian military needed to fight a grinding war against Russian-backed separatists would
help pave a path to the president's impeachment."
"Despite the unforeseen and disastrous consequences of the CIA-backed coup in Ukraine, the
United States is determined to continue its efforts to militarily encircle Russia, which it
sees as a major obstacle to its central geopolitical aim -- control of the Eurasian landmass,
which would give it a staging ground for a conflict with China."
If a conflict between USA led NATO and Russia goes thermonuclear, we can all kiss our
asses goodbye. Two maybe three hundred million dead outright within an hour or so. What
then?? Who the fuck knows.
However if the conflict remains non thermonuclear -but possibly involving tac nukes -- I
can conceive of no scenario in which Russia does not stomp the living shit out of a USA/NATO
aggressor. Russia and China allied and working together? Capitulation of the USA/NATO forces
within a month tops.
The problem is that we have psychopaths in D.C. and Brussels who actually believe that the
peoples of the Eurasian land mass can be subjugated. As long as their insanity is tolerated
,we are all living on borrowed time.
The White House National Security Council is sharply downsizing 'in a bid to improve
efficiency' by consolidating positions and cutting staff, according to the
Washington Times - which adds that a secondary, unspoken objective (i.e. the entire reason)
for the cuts is to address nonstop leaks that have plagued the Trump administration for nearly
three years.
Leaks of President Trump 's conversations with
foreign leaders and other damaging disclosures likely originated with anti-Trump officials in
the White
House who stayed over from the Obama administration, according to several current and
former White
House officials. -
Washington Times
The reform is being led by National Security Adviser Robert C. O'Brien , who told the Times
that 40-45 NSC staff officials had been sent back to their home-agencies, and more are likely
to be moved out.
"We remain on track to meeting the right-sizing goal Ambassador O'Brien outlined in October,
and in fact may exceed that target by drawing down even more positions ," said NSC spokesman
John Ullyot.
Under Obama, the NSC ballooned to as many as 450 people - and officials wielded 'enormous
power' according to the report, directly telephoning commanders in Afghanistan and other
locations in the Middle East to give them direct orders in violation of the military's strict
chain of command.
Meanwhile, the so-called second-hand 'whistleblower' at the heart of President Trump's
impeachment was widely reported to be a NSC staffer on detail from the CIA, Eric Ciaramella,
who took umbrage with Trump asking Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate former
VP Joe Biden - who Ciaramella worked with.
After O'Brien is done, less than 120 policy officials will remain after the next several
months.
The downsizing will be carried out by consolidating positions and returning officials to
agencies and departments such as the CIA, the State and Defense departments and the
military.
Mr. O'Brien noted that the NSC had a policymaking staff of 12 in 1962 when President
Kennedy faced down the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis. During the 2000s and the
George W. Bush administration, the number of NSC staff members increased sharply to support
the three-front conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism.
However, it was during the Obama administration that the NSC was transformed into a major
policymaking agency seeking to duplicate the functions of the State and Defense departments
within the White House . -
Washington Times
"The NSC staff became bloated during the prior administration," said O'Brien. "The NSC is a
coordinating body. I am trying to get us back to a lean and efficient staff that can get the
job done, can coordinate with our interagency partners, and make sure the president receives
the best advice he needs to make the decisions necessary to keep the American people safe."
"I just don't think that we need the numbers of people that it expanded to under the last
administration to do this job right," he added.
Obama-era NSC officials are suspected of leaking classified details of President Trump's
phone conversations with foreign counterparts .
After Mr. Trump 's election in November 2016
and continuing through the spring of 2017, a series of unauthorized disclosures to news
outlets appeared to come from within the White House . Several of the leaks
involved publication of sensitive transcripts of the president's conversations with foreign
leaders.
Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican and former chairman of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, said this year that he sent the Justice Department eight criminal
referrals related to the leaks, including those related to Mr. Trump 's conversations with the
leaders of Mexico and Australia.
Former White
House strategist Steve Bannon said efforts to weed out the Obama holdovers was a priority
early in the administration.
" The NSC had gotten so big there were over 450 billets ," said Mr. Bannon, adding that he
and others tried to remove the Obama detailees from the White House .
"We wanted them out," he said. "And I think we would have avoided a lot of the problems we
got today if they had been sent back to their agencies ."-
Washington Times
In addition to Ciaramella, Lt. Col. Alexander Vimdman (likely Ciaramella's source) testified
against President Trump during the House Impeachment investigations - telling the
Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee that he was "concerned" by what he heard on Trump's
call with Zelensky.
NSC official Tim Morrison, meanwhile, testified that Vindman was suspected of leaking
sensitive information to the press , a claim Vindman denied.
These holdovers from the Obama presidency will be sent back to their respective
intelligence agencies but not retrenched. They will continue to be employed, do nothing
useful and receive salary until their retirement date. Great working for .gov isn't it.
My question is whether little weenie ******** Vindman who wore his uniform to the hearings
but wore a suit every day to the White House is out of the White House and kicking horse
turds down the street. Imagine being President of the United States and you can't get that
*** hole out of your house each day. Same comment with Tim Morrison.
"The NSC staff became bloated during the prior administration," said O'Brien."
Imagine that! Useless ******* parasite government employees sucking up a paycheck,
probably paid handsomely. When you see a useless **** government employee, imagine them with
a bandit mask with their hand in the pocket of hard working private sector Americans.
Yes. Worked at Office of Personnel management for 2 years as a contractor. Full of lazy
incompetents hired for any reason other than talent. Deadwood everywhere.
fersur 26 minutes ago remove Share link Copy Article is at best close, Clapper was in the triad as a go-a-long,
Not as smart but just as Treasonus, their ( all Three ) play was the same play as my post
below, just maybe differenty colluded !
BOOM !
Militia Leader Who Led Raid on U.S. Embassy was at White House 2011.
Iranian militia leader Hadi al-Amiri, one of several identified as leading an attack on the
U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday, reportedly visited the White House in 2011 during the
presidency of Barack Obama.
On Tuesday, a mob in Baghdad
attacked the U.S. embassy in retaliation against last weekend's
U.S. airstrikes against the Iran-backed Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah (KH), responsible
for killing an American civilian contractor. KH is one of a number of pro-Iran militias that
make up the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU), which legally became a wing of the Iraqi
military after fighting the Sunni Islamic State terrorist group.
President Donald Trump has since accused Iran of having "orchestrated" the embassy attack
and stated that the government would be "held fully responsible."
Breitbart News reporter John Hayward described the attack on the embassy, writing:
The mob grew into thousands of people, led by openly identified KH supporters, some of
them wearing uniforms and waving militia flags. The attack
began after a funeral service for the 25 KH fighters killed by the U.S. airstrikes.
Demonstrators marched through the streets of Baghdad carrying photos of the slain KH members
and Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who condemned the American
airstrikes.
KH vowed to
seek revenge for the airstrikes on Monday. Both KH and the Iranian military unit that
supports it, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have been designated as terrorist
organizations by the U.S. government. The government of Saudi Arabia also described KH as one
of several "terrorist militias supported by the Iranian establishment" in
remarks on Tuesday condemning the assault on the U.S. embassy.
The attackers were able to smash open a gate and push into the embassy compound, lighting
fires, smashing cameras, and painting messages such as "Closed in the name of resistance" on
the walls. Gunshots were reportedly heard near the embassy, while tear gas and stun grenades
were deployed by its defenders.
A uniformed militia fighter on the scene in Baghdad told Kurdish news service Rudaw
that attacks were also planned against the U.S. consulates in Erbil and Basra, with the goal
of destroying the consulates and killing everyone inside.
The Washington Post
reported Tuesday that among those agitating protesters in Baghdad on Tuesday was Hadi
al-Amiri, a former transportation minister with close ties to Iran who leads the Badr Corps,
another PMF militia.
In 2011, both
Fox News and the Washington Times noted that then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki brought his
transportation minister, al-Amiri, to a meeting at the White House. The Times noted that
the White House did not confirm his attendance, but the official was on Iraq's listed members
of its delegation.
The al-Amiri accompanying al-Maliki, besides also being transportation minister, was
identified at the time as a commander of the Badr organization, further indicating it was the
same person. At the time, the outlets expressed concern that al-Amiri had ties to the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the FBI has stated played a role in a 1996 terrorist
attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen. President Donald Trump designated the IRGC a foreign
terrorist organization, the first time an official arm of a foreign state received the
designation.
Fox News' Ed Henry questioned White House Press Secretary Jay Carney following the visit
about the attendance of al-Amiri at the White House. Carney refused to answer and stating that
he would need to investigate the issue. The
full transcript from RealClearPolitics reads:
Ed Henry, FOX News: When Prime Minister Maliki was here this week there have been reports
that a former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which U.S. officials say played a
role in a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.
He was here at the White House with Prime Minister Maliki because he's a transportation
minister, yeah, transportation minister --
Jay Carney, WH: Who's [sic] report is that?
Henry: I believe the Washington Times has reported it. I think others have as well, but I
think this is a Washington Times --
Carney: I have to take that question then, I'm not aware of it.
Henry: Can you just answer it later though, whether he was here and whether a background
check had been done?
Carney: I'll check on it for you.
Henry: Okay, thanks.
In 2016, Obama secured a deal with Iran which included a payment of $1.7 billion in cash.
Breitbart News reporter John Hayward
reported in September of 2016:
On Tuesday, the Obama administration finally admitted something its critics had long
suspected: The entire $1.7 billion tribute paid to Iran was tendered in cash -- not just the
initial $400 million infamously shipped to the Iranians in a cargo plane -- at the same
moment four American hostages were released.
"Treasury Department spokeswoman Dawn Selak said in a statement the cash payments were
necessary because of the 'effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions,' which isolated
Iran from the international finance system,"
said ABC News, relating what might be one of history's strangest humblebrags. The
sanctions Obama threw away were working so well that he had to satisfy Iran's demands with
cold, hard cash!
By the way, those sanctions were not entirely related to Iran's pursuit of nuclear
weapons. As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
pointed out at National Review last month, they date back to Iran's seizure of
hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, its support for "Hezbollah's killing sprees," and,
most pertinently, Bill Clinton's 1995 invocation of "federal laws that deal with national
emergencies caused by foreign aggression," by which he meant Iran's support for international
terrorism.
Former white house staffer during the Obama administration, Ben Rhodes, blamed President
Trump's policies for the Tuesday attack on the U.S. embassy.
Many have hit back at Rhodes for the accusations, including former CIA ops officer Bryan
Dean Wright.
No further information has been given about al-Amiri's presence at the U.S. embassy raid on
Tuesday. Read more about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad at Breitbart News
here .
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online
censorship.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 DiGenova: Comey And Brennan Were 'Coup
Leaders' by Tyler
Durden Wed, 01/01/2020 - 19:30 0 SHARES
Former US Attorney Joe diGenova told OANN 's John Hines that former FBI Director
James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan were "coup leaders" in an attempt to reverse
the outcome of the 2016 US election.
DiGenova says the Obama Justice Department was corrupted under Attorneys General Eric Holder
and Loretta Lynch, "with the authority and knowledge of then-president" Obama, and that a
'stupid and arrogant' Susan Rice was dumb enough to document his knowledge in a January 20th,
2017 email.
"And you'll never forget, I'm sure, that famous Susan Rice email on inauguration day of
Donald Trump, where she sends an email to the file memorializing that there had been a
meeting on January 5th with the president of the United States, all senior law enforcement
and intelligence officials, where they reviewed the status of Crossfire Hurricane and the
president announced - President Obama - that he was sure that everything had been done by the
book.
I want to thank Susan Rice for being so stupid and so arrogant to write that email on
January 20th because that's exhibit A for Barack Obama - who knew all about this from start
to finish, and was more than happy to have the civil rights of a massive number of Americans
violated so he could get Donald Trump." -Joe diGenova
Moreover, diGenova says that after "all this stuff involving Trump and Page and Papadopoulos
and Michael Flynn," anyone who couldn't see that the "corrupt investigative process of the FBI
and DOJ was basically being used to conduct a coup d'état" is an idiot.
"This was not hard. If you're a good prosecutor you look at the facts in the Trump case,
and the Page case, the Flynn case. There's only one conclusion you can come to; none of this
makes any sense. None of these people were evil. None of them. They were framed , and the
whole process was playing out, and you knew it on July 5th 2016, when James Comey announced -
usurping the functions of the Attorney General, that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a
case against Hillary Clinton. That was ludicrous! She destroyed 30,000 emails that were under
subpoena. If you or I did that, we would be in prison today . She got a break because she was
Hillary Clinton, and James Comey was trying to kiss her fanny because he wanted something
from her when she became president of the United States.
All of these people who watched that news conference and didn't think that it was a
disgrace for the FBI. And then subsequently, watched all this stuff involving Trump and Page
and Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn - and couldn't see that the corrupt investigative process
of the FBI and the DOJ was basically being used to conduct a coup d'état . I mean you
have to be an idiot. Any first year assistant US attorney would look at all these facts and
say 'there's a coup underway. There's a conspiracy.'
But for those of us thought that, the Washington Post, the New York Times. We were
'conspiracy theorists.' You know what? Pretty damn good theory, it appears today.
" To what extent is the CIA involved in this? " asked Hines.
" Well there's no doubt that John Brennan was the primogenitor of the entire
counterintelligence investigation, " replied diGenova. "It was John Brennan who went to James
Comey and basically pummeled him into starting a counterintelligence investigation against
Trump. Brennan's at the heart of this. He went around the world. He enlisted the help of
foreign intelligence services. He's responsible for Joseph Mifsud and other people."
" People do not have even the beginning of an understanding of the role that John Brennan
played in this . He is a monstrously important person, and I underscore monstrously important
person. He has done more damage to the Central Intelligence Agency - it's equal to what James
Comey has done to the FBI. It's pretty clear that James Comey will go down in history as the
single worst FBI director in history, regardless of how Mr. Durham treats him."
Brennan was just the puppet. The real question is who the power brokers were behind the
scenes pulling strings and giving all the government officials cover. That's probably what
Durham is/needs to get to the bottom of. Hillary is untouchable until those guys get the book
thrown at them. My guess is the Queen is involved, probably the Vatican and Mossad as
well.
Full agreement with Joe DiGenova. In addition, I believe President Obama was an instigator
of this coup d'état. It could only happen in the intelligence field with his consent.
His whole persona is based on his willingness to calculate political gain and he had no
qualms or ethics. He was hailed as the first "black" President. His role in this coup was
made possible by all the people who thought black people were inferior and needed an
opportunity to get ahead. Depending upon how you look at that, that picture is in tatters.
Black folks are incredibly fortunate to have President Trump who will not blame black folks
for the travesties and destruction wrought by another black man. Would a died in the wool
radical like Hillary Clinton think that way?
The good men of the agencies should punish Comey and Brennan. They have "six ways 'til
Tuesday to get even." Why not teach them a lesson from the inside? Many MANY people in the
agency have been insulted by this and they deserve justice against Comey and Brennan.
Gotta give it to the OAN network. They're not dumb. If this actually DID pan out
(indictments and such, as a result of this investigative stuff, with no help whatsoever from
Barr, etc.), then OAN will be the lead network covering this.
Needless to say, it speaks VOLUMES upon VOLUMES, that Fox News isn't covering this (other
than Hannity).
"And you'll never forget, I'm sure, that famous Susan Rice email on inauguration day of
Donald Trump, where she sends an email to the file memorializing that there had been a
meeting on January 5th with the president of the United States, all senior law enforcement
and intelligence officials, where they reviewed the status of Crossfire Hurricane and the
president announced - President Obama - that he was sure that everything had been done by the
book."
Now... let's, for a moment, imagine this scene.
We've already had a Watergate in our history, involving the spying of one party on
another during a presidential campaign season.
These people know how that turned out.
Most of them are lawyers, and at least one is a supposed Constitutional
scholar and professor of Constitutional law.
That's Blo.
Does Rice really expect us to believe they didn't know Crossfire Hurricane was based on
Clinton Campaign-paid for ********?
Wouldn't a law professor president wanna know the basis, and the veracity of the
details, of such a risky operation before authorizing it?
Or are we to believe he merely accepted the assembled "assurances" in this meeting?
Were there presidential meetings about spying on Trump that occurred well before this
one?
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D) has taken flack from the left after voting "present" during
last week's formal House impeachment vote, and now says that the process may only "embolden"
President Trump and increase his chances of reelection (which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned
about before she caved to her party).
"I think impeachment, unfortunately, will only further embolden Donald Trump, increase his
support and the likelihood that he'll have a better shot at getting elected while also seeing
the likelihood that the House will lose a lot of seats to Republicans," said Gabbard in a
Saturday interview with ABC News in Hudson, New Hampshire.
Tulsi Gabbard: "Unfortunately the House impeachment of the President has greatly increased
the likelihood that Donald Trump will remain the President for the next 5 years...
Furthermore the House impeachment has increased the likelihood that Republicans will take
over the House." pic.twitter.com/gQIPssX0nS
Gabbard -- a 2020 president candidate -- noted that the prospect of a second term for
Trump and a Republican-controlled House is a "serious concern" of hers, adding that she's
worried about the potential ramifications that will be left if Trump is acquitted.
She told ABC News that it could leave "lasting damage" on the country as a whole.
The Democratic congresswoman -- who is known to be an outspoken critic of her own party --
was the lone lawmaker to not choose a side on impeachment, and has faced intense criticism
for her choice. - ABC News
Gabbard defended her decision to vote present, calling it an "active protest" against the
"terrible fallout of this zero sum mindset" between Democrats and Republicans. She told ABC
News that her vote was "not a decision of neutrality," and that she was indeed "standing
up for the people of this country and our ability to move forward together.
Observe Tulsi while you can. She is the last of a dying breed -- a relatively moderate
democrat. In today's Glo-Bol-Commiecrat party you have to be completely onboard with their 4
sheets to the wind extremist platform or you are the enemy.
Not to worry folks, if Tulsi is announcing president Trump and a majority in both the
house and senate it is safe to say things are right on track. However, HERE COME THE CIA and
NSA orchestrated false flag distractions and diversions I.e, Iran.. Also expect a much amped
up domestic terrorism by the MKULTRA radical nut jobs they will be using to divert attention.
Also creating a civil war starting in Virginia is examples of the allegiances to the satanic
fraternity by certain governors. These retards will also becoming out of the woodwork.
Not to worry folks, if Tulsi is announcing president Trump and a majority in both the
house and senate it is safe to say things are right on track. However, HERE COME THE CIA and
NSA orchestrated false flag distractions and diversions I.e, Iran.. Also expect a much amped
up domestic terrorism by the MKULTRA radical nut jobs they will be using to divert attention.
Also creating a civil war starting in Virginia is examples of the allegiances to the satanic
fraternity by certain governors. These retards will also becoming out of the woodwork.
I wish you conspiracy twits would drop the MKULTRA nonsense. MKULTRA was an UMBRELLA
PROGRAM that covered hundreds of classified operations, almost NONE of which had anything to
do with anything you people think it did. Head out of ***, please!
Oh, yeah, MKULTRA was totally cool, normal stuff, really. Just the Dulles Brothers and a
bunch of other psychos throwing people out of windows in the name of protecting Amurica from
the dirty Reds.
Glad to know a self-identified former intel person is on here making death threats against
Gabbard, by the way. Guess you have a get out of jail free card, huh? Why don't we find
out?
She is my Congresswoman. Tulsi is not perfect but she is good enough. Both the Democrat
Senator (Schatz and Hirono) don't support her on our only other Democrat Congressperson does
not support her. She is also despised by the national Dem party. This means she is doing
something right.
Leave Tulsi alone. She's the best of the group by far. Some of you sound like all the
George Bush supporters I knew who loved young Bush because he was so "pro-life". Give me a
break. She has socially conservative roots. Unfortunately she has had to take on some of this
progressive **** to be elected in a Democratic District. I have heard her views repeatedly on
abortion, gun rights and immigration. She doesn't worry me at all. I trust her on all these
issues more than Trump or any other establishment republican who I know are owned by the
elites and who will sell us out when they are told to.
This is the real Tulsi. Look at her Christmas eve video--enjoy:
Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the
name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After
'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the platform so
that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral.
" Rep. Ratliffe suggested Monday that the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella committed perjury
by making false statements in his written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is
hiding evidence of Ciaramella's crimes to protect him from criminal investigations," read the
tweet made by by now-banned @surfermom77, which describes herself as living in California and a
"100% Trump supporter."
Ciaramella has been outed in several outlets as the 'anonymous' CIA
official whose whistleblower complaint over a July 25 phone call between Trump and with his
Ukrainian counterpart is at the heart of Congressional impeachment proceedings.
Trump retweeted the post around midnight Friday. By Saturday morning, it was no longer
visible in his Twitter feed.
When contacted by The Guardian 's Lois Beckett for explanation, Twitter blamed an "outage
with one of our systems."
Some people reported earlier today that someone had deleted the alleged-whistleblower's
name-retweet from Trump's timeline. Others of us still see *that tweet* on Trump's timeline.
When asked for clarification, Twitter said this: https://t.co/Rftkg3nbus https://t.co/XREAvvxjhf
By Sunday morning, the tweet had been restored to Trump's timeline - however hours later the
user, @Surfermom77, was banned from the platform .
Running cover for Twitter is the Washington Post , which claims " The account shows
some indications of automation , including an unusually high amount of activity and profile
pictures featuring stock images from the internet."
Surfermom77 has displayed some hallmarks of a Twitter bot, an automated account. A recent
profile picture on the account, for instance, is a stock photo of a woman in business attire
that is available for use online.
Surfermom77 has also tweeted far more than typical users, more than 170,000 times since the
account was activated in 2013. Surfermom77 has posted, on average, 72 tweets a day, according
to Nir Hauser, chief technology officer at VineSight, a technology firm that tracks online
misinformation. -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Trump retweeted another Ciaramella reference on Thursday, after the @TrumpWarRoom
responded to whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid's tweet calling for the resignation of Sen. Marsha
Blackburn (R-TN) from the Senate Whistleblower Caucus after she made "hostile" comments - after
she tweeted in November that "Vindictive Vindman is the "whistleblower's" handler (a reference to
impeachment witness Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
"The watchdog group requested conversations between Ciaramella and special counsel Robert
Mueller, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI
attorney Lisa Page."
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
(@DrJillStein) 
January 20, 2020 © Photo: Wikimedia The New York
Times caused a mini-commotion last week with a front-page 
When
the United States, the United Kingdom, and the "coalition of the willing" attacked Iraq in
March 2003, millions protested around the world. But the war of "shock and awe" was just the
beginning. The subsequent occupation of Iraq by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority
bankrupted the country and left its infrastructure in shambles.
Your
comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
