The article is two years old now. Looks like Paul Craig Roberts was right. A very strange thing is that Trump proved to be
very good for weapon industry and not so bad for neocons. Still the coup is continuing.
Notable quotes:
"... There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump. ..."
"... The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress. ..."
"... The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue. ..."
"... The institutional Trump enemies are: ..."
"... The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
"... The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit. ..."
"... The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes. ..."
"... The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed European peoples will support the coup against Trump. ..."
"... PCR has gone senile. Trump IS the elite ..."
"... And Trump will continue the MidEast wars. He made it clear. ..."
"... The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11 ..."
"... 1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress ..."
"... 2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator ..."
"... 3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law. ..."
The below theses are thus far only a general outlay...
There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The
case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency
to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business,
which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now. However, the following contains some speculation.
The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling
U.S. power circles. The selection of Tillerson as new Secretary of State only reinforces this (Prediction: Bolton will not get
the Deputy position.) Tillerson is for profitable stability, not for regime change adventures.
The institutional Trump enemies are:
The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts
of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan
and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President
Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists'
benefit.
The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary
power in the world is anathema to their believes.
The article is a documented and accurate description of a coup that is underway. The extraordinary lies that are being perpetrated
by the media and by members of the US government have as their obvious purpose the prevention of a Donald Trump presidency. There
is no other reason for the extraordinary blatant lies for which there is not a shred of evidence. Indeed, there is massive real evidence
to the contrary. Yet the coup proceeds and gathers steam.
President Eisenhower warned us more than a half century ago of the danger that the military/security complex presents to US democracy.
In the decades since Eisenhower's warning, the military/security complex has become more powerful than the American people and is
demonstrating its power by overturning a presidential election.
Will the coup succeed?
In my opinion, former and present members of the US government and the media would not dare to so obviously and openly participate
in a coup against democracy and an elected president unless they expect the coup to succeed.
It is an easy matter for the ruling interests to bribe electors to vote differently than their states. The cost of the bribes
is miniscule compared to the wealth and income streams that a trillion dollar annual budget provides to the military/security complex.
The fake news of a Putin/Trump election-stealing plot generated by unsupported allegations of present and former members of US intelligence,
the lame-duck President Obama, and the presstitute media provide the cover for electors to break with precedent "in order to save
America from a Russian stooge."
The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed
European peoples will support the coup against Trump.
The only ones speaking against the coup are the voters who elected Trump-all of whom are alleged to have been deceived by Russian
fake news -- the Russian government, and the 200 websites falsely described by the Washington Post and the secret organization PropOrNot
as Russian agents.
In other words, those objecting to the coup are the ones described by the coup leaders as those who made the coup necessary.
I do not know that the coup will succeed, but looking at the commitment so many high level people have made to the coup, I conclude
that those bringing the coup expect it to succeed.
Therefore, we should take very seriously the expectation of success that those who control levers of power are demonstrating.?
As usual, Paul Craig Roberts is dead-on correct. Just wish Mr. T. would hook him up in some way in the new admin as an economic
adivosor of some sorts. He could make a yuuuuuuuge difference.
Above and beyond what is going on behind the scenes they are pushing for all out civil war. If the electors vote for Trump then
it's on to Jan.20 where multiple sources are calling out for an outright riot. Michael Moore is calling for a not a protest but
a revolution. In response, Trump supporters are now being encouraged to be 2nd amendment patriots to defend against a left wing
radical takeover. No matter what happens you can sure you won't hear the truth on the MSM. In fact TPTB are making sure right
now they shut down the "alt- right" lest any more muppets awaken.
"A whole group of trolls has been assigned to denigrate PCR's warning, which underlines its importance."
Count me in as one of those trolls, because I find PCR to be a sensationalist. In less than two weeks, limp-dick Obama won't
have another word to say about the "Russian hack", aka bullshit, and nothing Hillbilery has to say about anything will make any
more noise than a goose flying backwards and farting in a thunderstorm.
The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the
Military Industrial Complex.
The Imperial City (D.C.) of Isengard and Mordor (Wall Street) want fresh bodies and blood to enrich themselves. No more pointless
wars! No more body bags for blood money!
When the hell will the U.S. Military cut off the head of the beast and restore the Republic?
We can hope Trump can hack his way there, but if not, step up soldiers!
This may be the last chance, tipping point is here.
I have believed PCR is controlled opposition for a while now. I also believe the electors will, like the American People, deliver
Trump to the Oval Office. I also believe this whole mess is mainly aimed at undermining Trump's mandate from the People so repugs
in CONgress can give him a hard time. That won't work either because they'll be inundated with demands from their constituencies.
Screw 'em.
I agree with the premise of this article, but disagree that the deep state expects to succeed in a coup via the Electors. Using
the tired metaphor, the deep state plays chess. They are merely laying the groundwork for something later.
Paul Craig Roberts...the Armed Forces are with Trump. The CIA are a bunch of effete college girly-boys that should be outed
and either be arrested or die for crimes against the state.
FUCK THE CIA and their contractors. Whores for sale to the highest bidder. Enemies of the Republic. Death to them all!
If the Defense-Industrial Complex does overturn the election, their victory will be their pyrrhic last stand and it will be the
end of its dominance. The American people will totally destroy it.
what the United States and NATO are doing on Russia's western frontier is similar to what the German Wehrmacht did in preparation
for Operation Barbarossa.
...but we lost because every POTUS since JFK is a show pony or he goes to the glue factory (and he knows it). The establishment
won again so we wait in the shadows for the aging angry beast to die...
So, all indications are that he will receive > 270 electoral votes on 12/19, so the next day of action for this cabal is Jan.
6th when they can again attempt to overturn?
So we will have a lot of propaganda thrown at us yet again trying to influence that, but a) how many people actually pay attention
to this crap expecially over the holiday season, and b) how many people pay attention to the MSM anymore anyhow.
That is a large part of their angst - nobody seems to be listening to their bullshit.
I think that's when the House actual gives there nihil obstat and impramatur to the electoral college votes, and so members can
attempt to hang the process up there as per this below which was in the original article.
Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11
1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan.
6 in Congress
2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member
& 1 Senator
3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out
in federal law.
...
Once Trump gets in office the resultant corruption probe afterwards should be epic! We'll know by Monday if the electoral college
stays the course or steers the country towards anarchy.
Seems to me the CIA and the POTUS has made a complete mess of the world. Do the people really have a desire for them to solve
the problem when they caused the problem??? I think not!
I have CIA contacts.
They are freaked. .. It is even affecting some of them in the physical health department. (Not enough of them. IMHO.)
Now is NOT the time to fold to intimidation or threats. Now is the time to double down and make them back up threats and/or
expose themselves and show exactly which side they are on.
They DO NOT have enough manpower or assets in the states (or anywhere) to silence everyone.
If the Satanic Witch or other Ass Wipes Inc puppet other than Donald Trump (I'm not 100% sure about him but he is the best
shot we have, IMO.) gets put into office, shaking off these assholes will be much harder or impossible all together.
And BTW, in case you think you can just close your eyes and tuck back in a hole until the battle is over they have plans well
under way to kill you and your family anyway. .. I'm sure if you have read any of my previous posts you know what some of those
ways are.
That's my field report and firm recommendations for 12/17/16.
Live Hard, The CIA / CeyeA Are Not The Good Guys Here, Not Even Close, Die Free
I notice Trump has more than a few ex military people around him. A few generals. I wonder if the would call to active military
to stand down? Or to counter a coup?
My first thoughts after Trump selected the Generals was to organize a Military-lead counter coup. He has also aligned a massive
amount of wealth by his other appointments. I pray & hope I am correct.
The Republican electors their families and the GOP have way too much to lose. Republicans will never get elected again...and all
their lives would be in danger. Plus you would get domestic terror groups spring up across the country. Remember Trump won most
of the counties so his support is strong and getting stronger.
The soros and clintons of the world will not be able to control the backlash as they think..and you really would then see russia
and china stiring up big trouble in america.
Donald Trump, doesn't strike me as the type of person, that would lay down for such criminality... and if he puts up a fight,
like I think he will, anyone that supports him will fight with him. You can count me in that fighting group!
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a
voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only
the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove
the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's
first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.
In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA
had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's
accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later
Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor
Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to
attack the US.
The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team
B caused.
Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low
yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia
of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating
former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a
convincing case that Washington is asking for war.
I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward
Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring
us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless
repetition."
Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the
Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of
cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.
The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media
and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media
to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful
use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo
Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.
The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential
election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential
election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.
Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies,
and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on
grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three
decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.
I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people
who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.
As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were
independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation
could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet
Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.
If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying
to lift, read his book.
If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts
of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.
If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom
truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.
If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.
Finally an opportunity comes to offer B and MoA commenters a nice little Christmas present,
courtesy of ZeroHedge who have in the past reposted some of B's articles on their site.
True, ZH reposted this priceless gift from Caitlin Johnstone's own site but she seems to
have given her permission for the reposting.
Why priceless? - well who doesn't want to see the ever smug Luke Harding and his idiotic
and baseless arguments about Russian intrigue and inteference in US and European politics
taken down in a well-deserved thrashing by Aaron Mate?
Priceless to read the transcript and priceless to watch.
Luke Harding gets exposed for the fraud he really is and in such a way then!
If b has time I think he should make a post just about that interview/harding because he
seems to fool alot of people with these claims he is making.
I did watch the Luke Harding interview, largely as a result of Caitlin Johnstone, who I
have enormous respect for. However, I do not do Twitter. Incidentally, Julian Assange of all
people, brilliantly exposed Luke Harding (and the Guardian) in 2015. You can smell the sense
of betrayal.
Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his
family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!
You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left.
You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating
Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.
These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda
that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get
just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe
that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.
So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep
on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?
Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are
controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all
the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them
because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them.
If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK
murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.
This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem
when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have
our country back.
"I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and
misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, the
Trump Campaign and the Russian state," Stone writes in the opening statement he provided to The
Daily Caller.
WAIT! Didn't Debbie Washerwoman Shultz's long term, computer team from Pakistan just
get criminally charged with not only hacking over 30+ democrats in the House and possessing not
only the DNC files and all of Shultz files but also of selectively sending secure DNC and
congressional files to their own clandestine server, and then probably dispersing those files
to various foreign parties or the highest bidders?
WHEN THIS WAS UNCOVERED IN PART, THE
DEMOCRATS DESPERATELY COBBLED TOGETHER INFORMATION FROM A DOSSIER AND OTHER SOURCES AND ACCUSED
TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS! DUH!!!!!!!!!sm
Well as long as this guy 'believes' it then I guess there's no need for evidence. Go
forth, subservient minions and spread the fake news based on a Trump advisors 'feelings'.
Because there's no incentive for a Trump advisor to say something negative about Democrats so
by all means, spread it as if it were true and if ANYONE asks for evidence or says you're wrong
don't you DARE give them any kind of evidence, or talk to them like they have a valid request-
just get mad, freak out, call them a 'libtard'
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to
its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from neo-McCarthyism
smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats or intelligence, and into xenophobia
eyeing
any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope
that many commentators have long predicted.
The American government has now gone full blown McCarthy.
The fact that Russia hating, progressive left news channel, The Young Turks, has uncovered and published
this bombshell email should concern all Russian Americans that the witch-hunt against Russia may now be
extended to US citizens, residents, and tourists in the United States
no evidence needed except
profiling based on Russian heritage.
The Young Turks Network (TYT), a popular progressive YouTube channel and news site,
has
obtained a bombshell internal email
related to the Senate committee probing alleged Russian
interference in the American political system, and though currently being covered in Russian media,
mainstream US media is passing it over without comment.
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or
Russian descent" relevant to its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from
neo-McCarthyism smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats
or intelligence, and into xenophobia
eyeing any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a
potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope that many commentators
have long predicted.
Confident elite does not file such "amicus briefs". This is a sign of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Frightened
elite now was to stigmatize the dissent.
Notable quotes:
"... The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or confusion over sources of information." ..."
"... Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s." ..."
"... In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association". It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea: https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641 ..."
"... They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position is in context. ..."
"... Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words, 'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'. ..."
"... Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training. ..."
In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including former
deputy secretary of state William Burns; former CIA director John Brennan; former director of national intelligence James Clapper;
and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably includes free speech),
filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit.
The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence
in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived
as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or
confusion over sources of information."
The former officials portray the amicus brief as an offering of neutral ("Amici submit this brief on behalf of neither party")
expertise ("to offer the Court their broad perspective, informed by careers spent working inside the U.S. government").
The brief claims that Putin's Russia has not only "actively spread disinformation online in order to exploit racial, cultural
and political divisions across the country" but also "conducted cyber espionage operations to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic
process and, in the general election, influence the results against Secretary Hillary Clinton."
Much of this has been said before. But where the briefers branch off into new territory is in their attempt to characterize journalism
and political speech with which they disagree as acts of subversion on behalf of a foreign power.
According to the 14 former officials, Russia's active-measure campaign relies "on intermediaries or 'cut outs' inside a country,"
which are rather broadly defined as "political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies,
nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen."
Such "intermediaries" can range from "the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest,
to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced
to directly advance Russian operations and objectives."
In other words, a Russian "cut out" (or fifth columnist) can be defined as those "activists, academics, journalists, [or] web
operators" who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief.
In a recent essay for the London Review of Books, the historian Jackson Lears observed that "the religion of the Russian hack
depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords." And this
amicus brief is one such pronouncement.
In spite of the brief's high-flown language ("The threat posed to our democracy by Russian active measures campaigns is serious,
ongoing and will require vigilance on the part of the U.S. government and people"), it is little more than yet another effort to
stigmatize political speech that questions the necessity of demonizing Russia -- political speech, in other words, with which these
former high-ranking intelligence and national-security officials surely disagree.
Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation
of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
That is only too true; indeed, as of this writing, the Russia-Trump collusion narrative is fast devolving into an effort to stigmatize
and marginalize expressions of dissent, with the overarching aim of short-circuiting and stifling debate over US-Russia policy.
Knowledge is power, the truth will set you free. Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections":
The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
Not only no forgeries, which means the emails told the truth about what these morons were doing, but also it's been demonstrated
that the emails could only have been downloaded to a thumb drive because of the speeds they were transmitted. Why these fucking
dimwits keep overlooking that inconvenient truth is anyone's guess, likely because it doesn't dovetail with their scenario of
a Russian hack. This lawsuit goes nowhere but is being used to slowdown and divert attention away from the crimes of the DNC,
et al.
It burns me that Brennan and Clapper, those two fucking traitorous cunts, filed a brief supporting this bullshit. Those 2 assholes
were running the illegal spy operation against Trump during his campaign.
"In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including
former deputy secretary of state William Burns ; former CIA director John Brennan ; former director of national intelligence
James Clapper ; and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably
includes free speech), filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit."
How revealing, the co-conspirators have filed an amicus brief ;-)
In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association".
It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea:
https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641
At the very minimum many high fliers who put on these Smith-Mundt hoaxes are going away for charity fraud. That's one reason
they're so desperate.
They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position
is in context. It's a bit like my wife when I tell her I'm not in the mood.. hehehehehe
"In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls
a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the
bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words,
'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'.
Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training.
They have violated their oaths of office and have conspired to over through the constitutionally elected President of the United
States. Instead of filing amicus brief they should be swinging from ropes.
Yeah true, but think of the Army of New Recruits/Converts if Trump had the foresight/Inclination to Drain that SWAMP . . .
. To have a modicum of credibility in my eyes he'd have to Deputize Deplorables to shoot these treasonous bastards in the face.
We see this thought pattern all over college and lower education now. People defending the right to censor and even criminalize
things they don't believe in and often enough these people have nice penalties for not bowing down to our betters...We've come
full circle back to King George the III and the American Revolution it seems..The founders had enough of this exact bullshit ...
All nonsense. The Russians wanted Hillary to win. She (and everybody else) was already bought and paid for after Uranium One.
John Brennan still needs to answer for Passport Gate and the murder of his employee, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., in 2008 two weeks
before he was to testify. Brennan hacked the State department and tampered Obama's passport and was rewarded with the first post-election
appointment. Before there was Seth Rich there was 24 year old, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.
Claptrap, Brennan . . . two warmongering Shadow Government Lackey's who should be in Orange Jumpsuits. 12 months on and NO
jail sentences. MoFo Puppet!
So nations participates in the witch hunt, because they do not like Trump. Nice... The level of degradation of the
remnants of US left is simply incredible.
And they cite "intelligence community conclusion" (a group of hacks personally selected by Brennan for hactchet job which, as
we now know, included Peter Strzok)
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win ..."
"... Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far from a partisan "witch hunt." ..."
"... I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton. The stakes are much larger. ..."
Luke Harding's new book, Collusion:
Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win , doesn't claim
to have definitive proof that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to win the election.
Still, Harding, who served as The Guardian 's Moscow bureau chief for four years
before being thrown out of the country for his critical reporting on Vladimir Putin's
government, presents a powerful case for Russian interference, and Trump campaign collusion, by
collecting years of reporting on Trump's connections to Russia and putting it all together in a
coherent narrative.
It's the sheer breadth of connections, many of them dating back 20 years or
more, between Trump and his associates and Russians with close ties to the Kremlin that put the
lie to Trump's repeated claims that he has no ties to Russia.
If all of these dealings were on
the up-and-up, Trump and his crew wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to obscure them. Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures
campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently
staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far
from a partisan "witch hunt."
In an interview with The Nation , Harding was quick to acknowledge that there's a
lot that we don't know. "I think when it comes to following the money, we only have maybe 10 or
15 percent of the story," he said. "I think 85 percent of that story is still submerged."
Nonetheless, he says that what we do know so far is significant.
I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's
bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another
set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically
contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The stakes are much larger.
I think [Vladimir] Putin has kind of done this quite cleverly. He's not some kind of evil
villain in a cave flipping red switches. He's essentially an opportunist who has very
adroitly taken advantage of problems in the West, and divisions in American society --
whether they're cultural or racial or political -- and he's sought to exploit and
instrumentalize them for his own purposes.
There are also really interesting questions about how far back Russia's relationship with
Donald Trump goes. One thing my book makes clear, or seeks to make clear, is that the
Russians play a very long game. They've been interested in Donald Trump for a very long
time.
"... Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't. ..."
"... He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. ..."
"... Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser ..."
"... Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge. ..."
"... Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding? ..."
"... Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA? ..."
"... In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part. ..."
"... Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy ..."
"... Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank. ..."
Luke Daniel Harding
(born 1968) studied English at University College, Oxford. While there he edited the student
newspaper Cherwell . He worked for The Sunday Correspondent , the Evening
Argus in Brighton and then the Daily Mail before joining The Guardian in
1996. He was the Guardian's Russia correspondent from 2007-11.
Aside from his more publicly known achievements, it's worth noting Harding was accused of plagiarism by Mark Ames and Yasha
Levine of the eXile for publishing an
article under his own name that lifted large passages almost verbatim from their work. The
Guardian allegedly redacted portions of Harding's article in response to these accusations.
According to his own testimony , Luke
Harding is the guy who realised he was in the siloviki cross hairs one day when, during his
stay in Moscow as the Guardian's bureau chief, he came home and found one of his bedroom
windows open.
A less situationally-aware person would have made the fatal mistake of thinking one of his
kids or his wife had done it, or he'd done it himself and just forgotten, or that his landlord
had popped in to air the rooms (a bit of a tendency in
Russia apparently). But Luke was sure none of his family had opened the window. So it
had to have been the FSB.
You see, Luke isn't confined as we are by the constraints of petty mundanity. That was why
it had been so clear to him, even
without any evidence , that the FSB had murdered Litvinenko. And that was why Luke took one
look at that open window and realised the entire Russian intelligence machine was out to get
him .
The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts.
And that was only the start of the vicious campaign that was to follow. Tapes were left in
his cassette deck, when he knew he hadn't put them there. An alarm clock went off when he knew
he hadn't set it. Luke was filled with " a feeling of horror, alarm, incredulity, bafflement
and a kind of cold rational rage."
Things developed rapidly. Luke went to visit a woman called Olga who warned him to take
care, because he was "an enemy of Putin." He was sure someone had hacked his email account.
Whenever he said the name "Berezovsky" his phone line would go dead, so he started using the
word "banana" instead. A person from the Russian president's office called and asked for his
mobile number. Unable to imagine a single good reason why a Russian government official would
need a cell phone number for the Guardian's Russia bureau chief, he refused.
That wily Putin wasn't going to catch him that easily. The game of cat and mouse had
begun.
A middle-aged woman with a bad haircut knocked at his door at 7am, and walked away when he
opened it. Had she just gone to the wrong door? Of course not, it was the FSB taunting him. At
the airport on his way back to London a man with a Russian accent (in Moscow!) tapped him on
the back and told him there was something wrong with his jacket. Noticing the man was wearing a
leather coat, which meant he must be from the KGB, Luke immediately rushed to the gents and
took off all his clothes to find the "bugging device" the man had planted on him. He didn't
find one, but that didn't mean it wasn't there.
When the Russian government launched its prosecution of Berezovsky for fraud, someone from
the FSB phoned Luke and asked him to come in and make a statement about the interview he'd
conducted with the man a short time before. They also advised him to bring a lawyer, which
seemed sinister to Luke. A man called Kuzmin interviewed him for 55 minutes. Luke got quite
thirsty, but wouldn't drink the fizzy water he was offered, because he was pretty sure it had
been tampered with. Surprisingly Kuzmin didn't interrogate him as expected, but Luke decided
this was because the FSB were trying to intimidate him. They probably didn't need to do an
interrogation, thought Luke, since they'd been breaking in to his flat almost every day for
like – ever , switching on his alarm clock and probably also bugging his
phone.
After the western-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia Luke was amazed to note there
was widespread antagonism toward western journalists in Moscow. And the FSB just would not
leave him alone. Worried by this "campaign of brutishness" he decided to keep a log of the
dreadful things they were doing. Reading this we find not only did they continue to regularly
open his windows, they once turned off his central heating, made phantom ringing sounds happen
in the middle of the night (Luke couldn't find where they were coming from), deleted a screen
saver from his computer and left a book by his bed about getting better orgasms.
All this would have broken a lesser man. But Luke didn't break. Maybe that's why in the end,
they knew they'd have to expel him like in the old Soviet days. Which is what they did. Well,
they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he
didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his
kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because
Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't.
He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke
was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at
him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible
experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. But just when he thought all his espionage
problems were over, they started
up again when he began his book about Edward Snowden.
This time it was the NSA, GCHQ and a host of other western agencies stalking him. The PTB
obviously realised that Luke's book would be much much more of a threat to national
security than even Snowden himself, and did everything they could to try to stop him writing
it. They followed him around (he knew they were agents because they had iPhones) and even used
spy technology to remote-delete sentences from his computer – while he was typing
them. Especially when he was writing mean things about the NSA. But after he typed "I don't
mind you reading my manuscript but I'd be grateful if you don't delete it", they realised
they'd met their match and stopped.
He wasn't sure if the culprits were NSA, GCHQ or a Russian hacker, but one thing it
definitely wasn't was a glitchy keyboard.
I mean that would just be stupid.
NOTE: In case any of our readers are (understandably) inclined to think we must be
making this up or exaggerating, we encourage them to read about it here and here
in Luke's own words. You'll find we have merely summarised them.
Yes, he really does believe everything attributed to him in this article. He really does
think the FSB were opening his windows. And he really did run to the public toilet and take all
his clothes off because a man tapped him on the back in an airport.
We also recommend you take in this opinion
piece by Julian Assange, and this one by a Brit ex-pat
in Moscow.
After that feel free to complete the following questionnaire:
Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic
paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an
intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser
Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the
Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news.
Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA
stooge.
The force once again fails to materialise for Luke as TheRealNews Aaron Maté sends him
scurrying back to his conspiracy theories safespace during this brutal interview on Luke's
latest fictional release titled "Collusion".
Luke Harding's article on Grozny and Chechnya is a classic of the sour grapes variety. "The once war-torn country has been transformed, but change has come at a price"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/russia To the best of my knowledge, Chechnya is still enjoying its peace and prosperity –
totally unsupportable.
You have to remember that without old Luke we'd not have as much fun reading pages like
this!!! That's likely the only positive outcome of what he writes but a very important one.
In this 'insane asylum' light relief coupled with 'some decent perspectives' is a god
send. For those that like this page / the humour you might like this site: http://ckm3.blogspot.co.uk/
So, the time has come. Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist Ed) Surrounded by the KGB
(they no longer exist!! Ed) i, Luke Harding pen this my last will and testament. For though
the end has come, (Hurrah! Ed) my enemies made one final mistake, by thinking they could take
me alive. They left me the Book, the noble karma sutra
No Walter Mitty I, I carry no arsenic pills about me for such a mournful deed as this. No, I,
a writer, a cavalier of the epistolary kind, shall use The Book they left me on my bedside
table, the noble Kama sutra. And now, gently removing the cellophane – to my children I
bequeath my writing talent, to Pussy Minor disturbance (here he seems to be attempting to
outwit the KGB Ed.) my gift for self promotion, and to my wife, Phoebe, my greatest
possession, my reputation. And now, gently removing the cellophane, (you see, phoebe, your
bootless cries at bedtime fell not on deaf ears, I will use it once, as I promised) and
turning the page, I see the very position with which to foil my enemies (who must almost be
upon me, for I heard the catflap flap) – "Chicken Butter pasanda, also known as the
headless chicken". (How ironic, Ed.) Like the chicken, my head also shall be hidden from
view. Here goes! England, though I never knew you (very true, Ed) perhaps you will vouchsafe
me a place among the poets? Here goes again! Butter? Tick. Dilate? Tick. Bloody hell, I never
realised I had such a big head! Push! Push! They shall not catch me alive!
Like a candle in the wind .oooff! I really shouldn't have had extra beans. England, I do it
for thee! But hold, what's this I see? Tracks? Caterpillar tracks? Tank tracks?!! My god!
Wait till Shaun sees these, it's the biggest scoop of all time! And it's mine! I must stop
this foolshness now. KGB, be damned! Maybe they'll now take me back at the Daily Mail. I must
remove my head from my .
(at this point, the recording ends Ed. he will be missed Ed the world will be a sadder place
Ed there will be less laughter in the world without him. Phew. Got it. Ed)
Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and
The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another
guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics
course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other
work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding?
Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York
Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't
spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks
quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA?
I ventured out the next morning. My laptop was in the unlocked safe. (It didn't contain any
secrets; merely a work in progress.) A tall American immediately accosted me. He suggested we
go sightseeing. He said his name was Chris. "Chris" had a short, military-style haircut, new
trainers, neatly pressed khaki shorts, and a sleek steel-grey T-shirt. He clearly spent time
in the gym. Tourist or spook? I thought spook.
I decided to go along with Chris's proposal: why didn't we spend a couple of hours
visiting Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue? Chris wanted to take my photo, buy me a beer, go
for dinner. I declined the beer and dinner, later texting my wife: "The CIA sent someone to
check me out. Their techniques as clumsy as Russians." She replied: "Really? WTF?"
Shortly before I was banned from Komment Macht Frei, Mr. Harding popped up in the CiF column
in which I had just made a comment ridiculing his "journalism" to state that he believed that
I am probably a member of the FSB.
Luke Harding is not a journalist; he is the perennial centrefold in an imaginary magazine
called "Smug Prick". There is an irreconcilable gap between the Luke Harding he sees in the
mirror and the chowderhead we all know and mock. The Guardian keeps him on because it does
not give a tin weasel why you read, just as long as you read. It does not care if you do so
with gritted teeth, murmuring obscenities.
In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the
worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read.
When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were
insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside
opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part.
It did not take long for readers to start pointing out the hilarious lies, half truths and
smears in Mr Harding's articles.
How did he/they respond ?
Not only did he start moderating comments himself, he (and Shaun Walker) had readers
banned for highlighting the "inconsistency" in their reporting. Ha! Good luck with that.
It was quite pitiful to see him yesterday on the Grauniad's 'Troll Factory' story
maoaning, whining and blaming the readers for not beliveing his "truthful" reporting on
Russia haha.
It's going to be fascinating to see how he and his pals report the upcoming battle in
Syria between Russia/Syria/Iran/China VS America/ISIS/Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts."
That there is just pure gold, it was written as a serious piece but even if it wasn't it
would still be brilliant piece of comedy and sarcasm, but the fact that it's unintentionally
funny and not a sarcasm is what makes it one of the greatest arrangements of words ever. Man
sees an open window and "deciphers" that it was secret agents who opened it for the whole
purpose of leaving him a "message" and then "vanished like ghosts". A whole script from an
open window. Perhaps next time they will make an offer he can't refuse? Brilliant sketch,
someone mentioned Inspector Clouseau in the comments but I have to say that Clouseau has
nothing on this level of deduction skills, self importance and delusions of grandeur, or
delusions in general. I read that thing many times now and its still hilarious as first time
"The dark symbolism of the open window .."
There is a video of Carl Sagan where he explains how not to do science and logic and uses
clouds on Venus as an example how to get a grand and completely wrong conclusion out of
nothing, now know as The Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:
"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense
layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have
an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet,
it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's
even dinosaurs. -Observation: we can't see a thing on Venus. Conclusion: dinosaurs."
I think that Harding perhaps gave us even better example.
Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border
crossing with a Russian aid convoy. Despite there being a 5000 foot elevation between where he
actually was to where the border crossing was.Despite there being EU monitors at the border
crossing who did not see any tanks.When I pointed this out to Luke,as a comment on his
Guardian article,the article comments section disappeared and the placement of Russian tanks
at the border changed to a different border crossing.All of my previous comments were
purged,any other comments were moderated meaning an effectual ban and Luke carried on as if
nothing had happened.Something did happen,he stopped saying he personally saw Russian tanks
because he had been busted.In my opinion he is paid handsomely to post,anything,negative
against Russia and sometimes he just makes shit up when his wife needs a new kitchen
appliance.He is obviously a tosser to boot.
Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible
invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a
Russian tank.
Yeah that was good old shaun. shaun also saw a Russian vehicle somewhere in ukraine with peacekeeping symbols from
Chechnya. there was actually a photo of that one. unfortunately it was impossible to verify where and when the photo was taken and no other
such vehicle with those markings has ever been seen before or since in ukraine. the woman who supposedly took the photo had a long history of photographing Russia
vehicles in Chechnya.
Luke wouldn't even have taken any photos of the Russian tanks. He would have thought the
tanks were sent after him and he would taken off like a rabbit. Even if the tanks were going
in the other direction.
BTW Luke's wife Phoebe Taplin (also a journalist) wrote a series of books about walking in
Moscow at different times of the year according to season and exploring the city's parks and
open spaces on foot while they were stationed there. Folks, make of that what you will.
I think he has survived as a journalist which is in a way commendable. However, he irritated
Glenn Greenwald, when he interviewed him because Glenn could see the details Luke was
interested in writing about were literally going to be the material for a book, and I think
Glenn had not finished his own at that point! So a bit exploitive to say the least. It's an
irony that the Snowden film produced/directed by Oliver Stone is going to be based on Luke's
version not Glenn, guess who gains financially for example.
On the other hand, you have to give him credit for foresight – moving from the Daily
Mail to the Guardian before it was fashionable. Maybe his talents alone explain the lack of
substantive difference between these two organs of State.
If I didn't know that Luke Harding was a journalist, I'd have thought he was a comedian in
the tradition of Peter Sellers overdoing Inspector Clouseau in too many Pink Panther sequels.
Mr Harding is a huge threat to the ruthless Russian government due to his fearless
journalism, but rather than off him with some polonium tea or crumpets they decided to leave
a sex manual by his bed.
Was the idea that Mr Harding would die from over exertion?
Even the sudden appearance of the Kama Sutra in English by the bedside table would have
aroused LDH's suspicions. What, he would have wondered, were the terrifying secrets encoded
in the manual?
Hunt was a member of the White House "plumbers," the secret team assembled
to stop government leaks after defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the press. A former CIA operative, Hunt organized the bugging of the
Democratic headquarters in the Watergate -- as well as a break-in at the office of
Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt's phone number in address books belonging to the
Watergate burglars helped investigators -- and reporters -- connect the break-in to
the president and his reelection campaign. Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and
wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison.
By the time of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was already moonlighting as a spy
novelist. He has since penned dozens of books, including a memoir and "Dragon
Teeth," a thriller published this May.
In 1981, Hunt won $650,000 in a libel suit against the Liberty Lobby for a 1978
article that appeared in the right-wing group's conspiracy-minded newspaper, The
Spotlight. The article linked Hunt to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
suggesting the CIA man was in Dallas on the day of the 1963 shooting. Mark Lane,
author of the best-selling "Rush to Judgment," successfully defended Liberty Lobby
in a second trial in 1985, overturning the original libel award. Lane outlined his
theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book,
"Plausible Denial."
Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors in June 1995. He died at
a Miami hospital after a lengthy bout with pneumonia Jan. 23, 2007.
The Watergate Break-In
June 16, 1972: In room 214 of the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., seven men gathered to
finalize their plans to break in to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters,
located on the sixth floor of one of the Watergate complex's six buildings. One of these men,
G. Gordon Liddy , was a former FBI agent. Another, E. Howard Hunt , had retired from the CIA.
James McCord would handle the bugging, Bernard Barker would photograph documents, and Virgilio
Gonzalez would pick the locks. The remaining two, Eugenio Martinez and Frank Sturgis, would
serve as lookouts. Several of these men were Cuban exiles who had met Hunt through their
participation in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion back in 1961.
"... . . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . . 30 ..."
During his later years at the CIA, Helms witnessed the Agency and the whole enterprise of
intelligence fall into disrepute as Congress and the public subjected US foreign policy to
unprecedented criticism. Helms took the occasion of his only public speech as DCI to affirm
that "the nation must to a degree take it on faith that we too are honorable men devoted to her
service."
28 By the end of his directorship, however, years of political protest, social
upheaval, and revelations of government incompetence and wrongdoing had depleted much of that
faith. Helms became a (not entirely blameless) casualty of that rapid and sweeping change in
the American people's sense of what their government should and should not do. He had once said
that Americans "want an effective, strong intelligence operation. They just don't want to hear
too much about it."
29 But now prominent voices demanded of the CIA far more accountability than Helms
was used to or thought appropriate. As he wrote in this journal in 1967:
. . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public
critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite
another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it
painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on
our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . .
30
Helms declined a presidential request to submit his resignation after the 1972 elections,
not wanting to set a precedent that he thought would politicize the position of DCI. After he
was forced out in 1973 -- he believed that Nixon was mad at him for refusing to use the CIA in
the Watergate cover up -- Helms spent several years coping with controversies ensuing in part
from some of his acts of omission and commission while at the Agency. He became a lightning rod
for criticism of the CIA during its "time of troubles" in the mid-1970s. He was called back
many times from his ambassadorial post in Tehran to testify before investigatory bodies about
assassination plots, domestic operations, drug testing, the destruction of records, and other
activities of dubious legality and ethicality known collectively as the "Family Jewels." He
responded to inquiries about them cautiously, sometimes testily, as he tried to walk the
increasingly fuzzy line between discretion and disclosure.
Helms ran into legal troubles resulting from his judgment about when and when not to reveal
secrets. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just after leaving the
Agency, he denied that the CIA had tried to influence the outcome of the Chilean presidential
election in 1970. Helms described his quandary this way: "If I was to live up to my oath and
fulfill my statutory responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods from
unauthorized disclosure, I could not reveal covert operations to people unauthorized to learn
about them."
31 He eventually pleaded no contest to charges of not testifying "fully, completely
and accurately" to the committee. His statement to the federal judge who was about to sentence
him, although addressed to the immediate situation, could also summarize nearly his whole
experience as DCI: "I was simply trying to find my way through a difficult situation in which I
found myself
Notes: (1) Although these excerpts do not contain footnotes, the book itself is heavily
footnoted and exhaustively sourced. (2) To distinguish between George Bush, father and son,
George H.W. Bush is sometimes referred to by his nickname Poppy, and George W. Bush by his, W.
(3) Additional context can be found in the preceding chapters.
Before you read this second installment, please go
here to read the first installment.
***********
Family of Secrets
Chapter 10: Downing Nixon: The Setup
Who Will Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest? ascribed to Henry II
On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance
equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National
Committee offices at 2650 Virginia Avenue, NW, in Washington,
D.C., the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as
having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House.
Though at the time the incident got little attention, it would snowball into
one of the biggest crises in American political history, define Richard Nixon
forever, and drive him out of the White House.
Most historical accounts judge Nixon responsible in some way for the
Watergate burglary -- or at least for an effort to cover it up. And many people
believe Nixon got what he deserved.
But like other epic events, Watergate turns out to be an entirely different
story than the one we thought we knew.
Hanky-Panky, Cuban-Style
Almost no one has better expressed reasons to doubt Nixon's involvement
than Nixon himself. In his memoirs, Nixon described how he learned about
the burglary while vacationing in Florida, from the morning newspaper. He
recalled his reaction at the time:
It sounded preposterous. Cubans in surgical gloves bugging the DNC! I dismissed it as some sort of prank . . . The whole thing made so little sense. Why, I wondered. Why then? Why in such a blundering way . . . Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign. The whole thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of a setup.
Nixon was actually suggesting not just a setup, but one intended to harm
him.
Perhaps because anything he might say would seem transparently self-
serving, this claim received little attention and has been largely forgotten.
Notwithstanding Nixon's initial reaction to the news of the break-in,
less than a week later he suddenly learned more -- and this gave him much
to ponder.
On June 23, Nixon's chief of staff, H. R. "Bob" Haldeman, came into the
Oval Office to give the president an update on a variety of topics, including
the investigation of the break-in. Haldeman had just been briefed by John
Dean, who had gotten his information from FBI investigators.
HALDEMAN: . . . The FBI agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that's what it is. This is CIA .
Nixon's response would show that he had already realized this:
NIXON: Of course, this is a, this is a [E. Howard] Hunt [operation, and exposure of it] will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves This will open the whole Bay of Pigs thing
Of course, it is important to remember that Nixon knew every word he
uttered was being recorded. Like his predecessors Kennedy and Johnson,
he had decided to install a taping system so that he could maintain a record
of his administration. He was, in a way, dictating a file memo for future historians.
But that doesn't make everything he said untrue. While Nixon undoubtedly
spun some things, he still had to communicate with his subordinates,
and the tape was rolling while he was trying to run the country. Those were
actual meetings and real conversations, tape or no tape. And though the
result was 3,700 hours of White House tape recordings, Nixon evinced
merely sporadic consciousness of the fact that the tape was rolling. Only after
his counsel John Dean defected to the prosecutors did Nixon appear to
be tailoring his words.
Nixon's memoirs, combined with the tape of June 23, make clear that
Nixon recognized certain things about the implementation of the burglary.
The caper was carried out by pros, yet paradoxically was amateurish, easily
detected -- an instigation of the crime more easily pinned on someone else.
A break-in at Democratic Party headquarters: On whom would that be
blamed? Well, who was running against a Democrat for reelection that
fall? Why, Richard Nixon of course. Nixon, who frequently exhibited a grim
and self-pitying awareness of how he generally was portrayed, might have
grasped how this would play out publicly. Dick Nixon: ruthless, paranoid,
vengeful -- Tricky Dick. Wouldn't this burglary be just the kind of thing that
that Dick Nixon -- the "liberal media's" version of him -- would do? Nixon's
opponent, George McGovern, made this charge repeatedly during the 1972
campaign.
Though Nixon would sweep the election, it would become increasingly
apparent to him that, where Watergate was concerned, the jury was stacked.
The path was set. Someone had him in a corner.
But who?
Many people, including those within Nixon's own base of support, were
not happy with him -- even from early in his administration. As Haldeman
noted in his diary, one month after the inauguration in 1969:
Also got cranking on the political problem. [President's] obviously concerned about reports (especially Buchanan's) that conservatives and the South are unhappy. Also he's annoyed by constant right- wing bitching, with never a positive alternative. Ordered me to assemble a political group and really hit them to start defending us, including Buchanan . . . [and political specialist Harry] Dent.
There would be growing anger in the Pentagon about Nixon and Kissinger's
secret attempts to secure agreements with China and the Soviet Union without
consulting the military. And there were the oilmen, who found Nixon
wasn't solid enough on their most basic concerns, such as the oil depletion
allowance and oil import quotas.
As for the burglary crew, Nixon recognized them instantly, because he
knew what they represented. While serving as vice president, Nixon had
overseen some covert operations and served as the "action officer" for the
planning of the Bay of Pigs, of which these men were hard-boiled veterans.
They had been out to overthrow Fidel Castro, and if possible, to kill him.
Nixon had another problem. These pros were connected to the CIA, and
as we shall see, Nixon was not getting along well with the agency.
One of the main reasons we fundamentally misunderstand Watergate is
that the guardians of the historical record focused only on selected parts of
Nixon's taped conversations, out of context. Consider a widely cited portion
of a June 23 meeting tape, which would become known forever as the
"smoking gun" conversation:
HALDEMAN: The way to handle this now is for us to have [CIA deputy director Vernon] Walters call [FBI interim director] Pat Gray and just say, "Stay the hell out of this this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it." NIXON: Um hum.
Short excerpts like this seem especially damning. This one sounds right
off the bat like a cover-up - Nixon using the CIA to suppress an FBI investigation
into the break-in.
But these utterances take on a different meaning when considered with
other, less publicized parts of the same conversation. A prime example:
Haldeman went on to tell Nixon that Pat Gray, the acting FBI director, had
called CIA director Richard Helms and said, "I think we've run right into
the middle of a CIA covert operation."
Although the first excerpt above sounds like a discussion of a cover-up,
when we consider the information about the CIA involvement, it begins to
seem as if Nixon is not colluding. He may well have been refusing to take the
rap for something he had not authorized -- and certainly not for something
that smelled so blatantly like a trap. Nixon would have understood that if the
FBI were to conduct a full investigation and conclude that the break-in was indeed
an illegal operation of the CIA, it would all be blamed squarely on the
man who supposedly had ultimate authority over both agencies -- him. And
doubly so, since the burglars and their supervisors were tied not just
to the CIA but also directly back to Nixon's reelection committee and the
White House itself.
Yet, however concerned Nixon certainly must have been at this moment,
he played it cool. He concurred with the advice that his chief of staff was
passing along from the counsel John Dean, which was to press the CIA to
clean up its own mess.
If the CIA was involved, then the agency would have to ask the FBI to
back off. The CIA itself would have to invoke its perennial escape clause --
say that national security was at stake.
This must have sounded to Nixon like the best way to deal with a vexing
and shadowy situation. He had no way of knowing that, two years later, his
conversation with Haldeman would be publicly revealed and construed as
that of a man in control of a plot, rather than the target of one.
Sniffing Around the Bay of Pigs
How could Nixon have so quickly gotten a fix on the Watergate crew? He
might have recognized that the involvement of this particular group of
Cubans, together with E. Howard Hunt -- and the evidence tying them back
to the White House -- was in part a message to him. One of the group leaders,
G. Gordon Liddy, would even refer to the team as a bunch of "professional
killers." Indeed
, several of this Bay of Pigs circle had gone to Vietnam
to participate in the assassination-oriented Phoenix Program; as noted in
chapter 7, Poppy Bush and his colleague, CIA operative Thomas Devine,
had been in Vietnam at the peak of Phoenix, and Bush had ties to at least
some from this émigré group.
So Nixon recognized this tough gang, but this time, they weren't focused on
Fidel Castro; they were focused on Dick Nixon.
Hunt was a familiar figure from the CIA old guard. A near contemporary of
Poppy Bush's at Yale , Hunt had, as noted in earlier
chapters, gone on to star in
numerous agency foreign coup operations, including in Guatemala. He had
worked closely with Cuban émigrés and had been in sensitive positions at the
time John F. Kennedy was murdered and Lee Harvey Oswald named the lone
assassin. Moreover, Hunt had been a staunch loyalist of Allen Dulles, whom
Kennedy had ousted over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion; he allegedly even
collaborated on Dulles's 1963 book, The Craft of Intelligence. Hunt was one
connected fellow, and his presence in an operation of this sort, particularly with
veterans of the Cuba invasion, was not something to pass over lightly.
Nixon had further basis for viewing the events of Watergate with special
trepidation. From the moment he entered office until the day, five and a half
years later, when he was forced to resign, Nixon and the CIA had been at
war. Over what? Over records dating back to the Kennedy administration
and even earlier.
Nixon had many reasons to be interested in the events of the early 1960s.
As noted, he had been the "action officer" for the planning of the Bay of Pigs
and the attempt to overthrow Castro. But even more interestingly, Nixon had,
by coincidence, been in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and had left the city
just hours before the man he barely lost to in 1960 had been gunned down.
Five years after the Kennedy assassination, as Richard Nixon himself assumed
the presidency, one of his first and keenest instincts was to try to learn more
about these monumental events of the past decade.
Both of Nixon's chief aides, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, noted
in their memoirs that the president seemed obsessed with what he called
the "Bay of Pigs thing." Both were convinced that when Nixon used the
phrase, it was shorthand for something bigger and more disturbing. Nixon
did not tell even those closest to him what he meant.
When Nixon referred to the Bay of Pigs, he could certainly have been using
it as a euphemism, because any way one thought about it, it spelled
trouble. The Bay of Pigs invasion itself had been a kind of setup of another
president. JFK had made clear that he would not allow U.S. military forces
to be used against Castro. When the invasion by U.S.-backed Cuban exiles
failed, the CIA and the U.S. military hoped this would force Kennedy to
launch an all-out invasion. Instead, he balked, and blamed Dulles and his
associates for the botched enterprise, and, to their astonishment, forced
them out of the agency. As noted in chapter 4, these were the roots of the hatred
felt by Hunt, Dulles, and the Bush family toward Kennedy.
Nixon was keenly aware that Kennedy's battle with powerful internal elements
had preceded JFK's demise. After all, governments everywhere have
historically faced the reality that the apparatus of state security might have
the chief of state in its gun sights -- and that it certainly possesses the ability
to act.
Moreover, Richard Nixon was a curious fellow. Within days of taking
office in 1969, Nixon had begun conducting an investigation of his own regarding
the turbulent and little-understood days leading up to the end of the
Kennedy administration. He had ordered Ehrlichman, the White House
counsel, to instruct CIA director Helms to hand over the relevant files, which
surely amounted to thousands and thousands of documents. Six months
later, Ehrlichman confided to Haldeman that the agency had failed to produce
any of the files.
"Those bastards in Langley are holding back something," a frustrated
Ehrlichman told Haldeman. "They just dig their heels in and say the President
can't have it. Period. Imagine that. The Commander-in-Chief wants to
see a document and the spooks say he can't have it . . . From the way they're
protecting it, it must be pure dynamite."
Nixon himself then summoned Helms, who also refused to help. Helms
would later recall that Nixon "asked me for some information about the Bay
of Pigs and I think about the Diem episode in Vietnam and maybe something
about Trujillo in the Dominican Republic" -- all events involving the
violent removal of foreign heads of state.
Fidel Castro had managed to survive not only the Bay of Pigs but also multiple
later assassination attempts. Diem and Trujillo were not so fortunate.
And President Kennedy, who made a lot of Cuban enemies after the botched
Bay of Pigs operations, had also succumbed to an assassin's bullet. This was a
legacy that might well seize the attention of one of Kennedy's successors.
The explosiveness of the mysterious "Bay of Pigs thing" became abundantly
apparent on June 23, 1972, the day Nixon instructed Haldeman to tell
CIA director Helms to rein in the FBI's Watergate investigation. Recalled
Haldeman:
Then I played Nixon's trump card. "The President asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs might be blown . . ."
Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair, leaning forward and shouting, "The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs." . . . I was absolutely shocked by Helms' violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?
Nixon made clear to his top aides that he was not only obsessed with the
CIA's murky past, but also its present. He seemed downright paranoid about
the agency, periodically suggesting to his aides that covert operatives lurked
everywhere. And indeed, as we shall see, they did.
In all likelihood, the practice of filling the White House with intelligence
operatives was not limited to the Nixon administration, but an ongoing effort.
To the intelligence community, the White House was no different than
other civil institutions it actively penetrated. Presidents were viewed less as
elected leaders to be served than as temporary occupants to be closely monitored,
subtly guided, and where necessary, given a shove.
If the CIA was in fact trying to implicate Nixon in Watergate (and, as we
shall see, in other illegal and troubling covert operations), the goal might
have been to create the impression that the agency was joined at the hip
with Nixon in all things. Then, if Nixon were to pursue the CIA's possible
role in the assassination of Kennedy, the agency could simply claim that
Nixon himself knew about these illegal acts, or was somehow complicit in
them.
A Little Exposure Never Hurts
Something had been gnawing at Nixon since November 22, 1963. Why had
he ended up in Dallas the very day the man who he believed had stolen the
presidency from him was shot? Nixon had been asked to go there just a few
weeks before, for the rather banal purpose of an appearance at a Pepsi-Cola
corporate meeting -- coinciding with a national soda pop bottlers' convention.
The potential implications could not have been lost on this most shrewd and
suspicious man.
Nixon was no shrinking violet in Dallas. He called a press conference in
his hotel suite on November 21, the day before Kennedy's murder, criticizing
Kennedy's policies on civil rights and foreign relations but also urging
Texans to show courtesy to the president during his visit.
More significantly, he declared his belief that Kennedy was going to replace
Vice President Johnson with a new running mate in 1964. This was
an especially incendiary thing to say, since the whole reason for Kennedy's
visit was to cement his links to Texas Democrats, help bridge a gap between
the populist and conservative wings of the state party, and highlight his partnership
with Johnson. Nixon's comment was hot enough that it gained a place in the
early edition of the November 22 Dallas Morning News, under the headline
"Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson."
This was likely to get the attention of Johnson, who would be in the motorcade
that day -- and of conservatives generally, the bottlers included, whom Johnson
had addressed as keynote speaker at their convention earlier in the week.
Nixon had finished his business and left the city by 9:05 on the morning
of the twenty-second, several hours before Kennedy was shot. He learned
of the event on his arrival back in New York City. Like most people, he no
doubt was shocked and perhaps a bit alarmed. Many people, Nixon included,
believed that Kennedy had stolen the presidential election in 1960 by fixing
vote counts in Texas and Illinois.
At the very least, the appearance of Nixon's November 21 press conference
remarks in the newspaper just hours before Kennedy's death was a
stark reminder of the large and diverse group of enemies, in and out of politics,
that JFK had accumulated.
Certainly, Nixon himself was sensitive to the notion that his appearance
in Dallas had somehow contributed to Kennedy's bloody fate. According to
one account, Nixon learned of the assassination while in a taxi cab en route
from the airport. He claimed at the time and in his memoirs that he was
calm, but his adviser Stephen Hess remembered it differently. Hess was
the
first person in Nixon's circle to see him that day in New York, and he recalled
that "his reaction appeared to me to be, 'There but for the Grace of
God go I.' He was very shaken."
As Hess later told political reporter Jules Witcover: "He had the morning
paper, which he made a great effort to show me, reporting he had held a
press conference in Dallas and made a statement that you can disagree with
a person without being discourteous to him or interfering with him. He
tried to make the point that he had tried to prevent it . . . It was his way of
saying, 'Look, I didn't fuel this thing.' "
Nixon's presence in Dallas on November 22, 1963, along with LBJ's --
and Poppy Bush's quieter presence on the periphery -- created a rather remarkable
situation. Three future presidents of the United States were all present in a
single American city on the day when their predecessor was assassinated
there. Within days, a fourth -- Gerald Ford -- would be asked by LBJ to join
the Warren Commission investigating the event.
Bottled Up
Nixon's unfortunate timing resulted from a series of events that seem, in retrospect,
almost to have benefited from a guiding hand. In mid-1963, friends
had persuaded him that his long-term prospects required a move from California,
where he had lost the 1962 race for the governorship. Now that he
was a two-time loser, Nixon's best hope, they counseled, was to find a position
in New York that would pay him handsomely, and let him politick and
keep himself in the public eye. His friend Donald Kendall, the longtime head
of Pepsi's international operations, offered to make him chairman of the
international division. But the consensus was that a law firm job would suit
him better, so he joined the firm of Mudge, Stern, Baldwin, and Todd.
Kendall sweetened the deal by throwing the law firm Pepsi's lucrative legal
business. In September, Kendall himself was promoted to head the entire
Pepsi company.
On November 1, President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, a corrupt
anti-Communist, was overthrown and assassinated. On November 7, Nixon
wrote to GOP strategist Robert Humphreys, expressing outrage over Diem's
death and blaming the Kennedy administration. "Our heavy-handed complicity
in his murder can only have the effect of striking terror in the hearts
of leaders of other nations who presumably are our friends."
Historians disagree on what exactly Kennedy knew about Diem's death,
though Kennedy registered shock at the news -- just as he had when Patrice
Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader, was assassinated in 1961.
Kennedy realized that he could be blamed. Later on, it would be established
by the Senate Intelligence Committee that the CIA had been attempting to
kill Lumumba.
Also of interest is a little-noticed comment made by President Lyndon
Johnson in 1966, caught by his own recording equipment, in which he
declared about Diem: "We killed him. We all got together and got a god-
damn bunch of thugs and assassinated him." It is not clear whom he
meant by "we."
Kendall asked Nixon to accompany him to Dallas for the Pepsi corporate
gathering coinciding with the bottlers' convention in late November. The
convention was an important annual event for Pepsi, and so would have
been on Kendall's schedule for a while, though the necessity of Nixon's
presence is less apparent. And with LBJ as keynote speaker, and appearances
by Miss USA, Yogi Berra, and Joan Crawford, Nixon, the two-time loser, did
not even appear at the convention.
For his part, Nixon seems to have agreed to go because it was an opportunity
to share the limelight surrounding Kennedy's visit. And since Nixon was
traveling as a representative of Pepsi, and flying on its corporate plane --
something noted in the news coverage -- Kendall was getting double duty out
of Nixon's play for media attention. That was something Kendall understood
well.
Donald Kendall was, like Nixon and Poppy Bush, a World War II Navy
vet who had served in the Pacific. But instead of politics, he had gone into
the business world, joining the Pepsi- Cola company and rising quickly
through the ranks. Like Nixon and Bush, he was enormously ambitious.
And in his oversight of Pepsi operations abroad, he also shared something
else with them: a deep concern about Communist encroachment -- which
was just about everywhere. Plus Kendall had a passion for covert operations.
Kendall's particular reason for being interested in Cuba was sugar, for
many years a key ingredient of Pepsi-Cola. Cuba was the world's leading
supplier; and Castro's expropriations, and the resulting U.S. embargo, had
caused chaos in the soft drink industry. (It also had affected the fortunes of
Wall Street firms such as Brown Brothers Harriman, which, as noted in
chapter 3, had extensive sugar holdings on the island.)
Indeed, articles from the Dallas papers anticipating the bottlers' convention
talked openly about all these problems with Cuba. One of the articles, titled
"Little Relief Seen for Sugar Problem," explains the pressure
felt by soft drink
bottlers in light of a crisis concerning high sugar prices. The president of a major
New York-based sugar company is quoted explaining why the crisis had
not yet been averted: "The government probably thought the Castro regime
might be eliminated."
It is in this context that we consider a June 1963 letter from Nixon to
Kendall, then still running Pepsi's foreign operations. A researcher working
for me found it in Nixon's presidential library archives; it appears to be previously
unpublished.
Dear Don: In view of our discussion yesterday morning with regard to Cuba, I thought you might like to see a copy of the speech I made before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in which I directed remarks toward this problem. When I return from Europe I am looking forward to having a chance to get a further fill-in with regard to your experiences on the Bay of Pigs incident.
Dick
The letter rings a little odd. Nixon and Kendall were close, and more than
two years had passed since the Bay of Pigs; it was unlikely that this would be
the first chance Nixon got to discuss the subject with his friend. Furthermore,
Kendall is not known to have had any "experiences" in relation to the invasion.
In a 2008 interview, Kendall, by then eighty-seven years old but still maintaining
an office at Pepsi and seeming vigorous, said that he could not recall the letter
nor provide an explanation for it.
Given this, the use of the phrase in the letter appears to be some form of
euphemism between friends, a sort of discreet wink. Nixon, the former
coordinator of covert operations under Ike, clearly knew that Kendall was
more than a soda pop man. Nixon's experiences representing Pepsi instilled
in him a lasting -- and not altogether favorable -- impression of what he
acidly termed "the sugar lobby." Haldeman got the message that treading
carefully was wise. Some of his notes are intriguing in this respect. He
urges special counsel Charles Colson:
0900 Cols[on] -- re idea of getting pol. Commitments -- Sugar people are richest & most ruthless before we commit -- shld put screws on & get quid pro quo ie Fl[anigan] -- always go to Sugar lobby or oil etc. before we give them anything
The CIA also knew the soft drink industry well. The agency used bottling
plants, including those run by Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and other companies, for
both cover and intelligence. Moreover, the local bottling franchises tended
to be given to crucial figures in each country, with ties to the military and
the ruling elites. It was not just bottlers that played such a role; there were
marketing monopolies for all kinds of products, from cars to sewing machines,
given out on recommendations of the CIA.
Kendall was a close friend of the Bush family and a fellow resident of
Greenwich, Connecticut. In 1988, he would serve in the crucial position of
finance chairman for Poppy Bush's successful run for the presidency. His
support for the Bushes included donating to George W. Bush's 1978 Midland
congressional campaign.
And as noted by the New York Times , Kendall was
identified with the successful
effort to overthrow the elected democratic socialist president of Chile, Salvador
Allende.
As the Times would report in July 1976:
One of Mr. Kendall's great passions is international trade, and his interest in foreign affairs won him a footnote in a 1975 interim report of a Senate Select Committee. The report was called "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders," and discussed in part the assassination of Salvador Allende Gossens, the Marxist Chilean president who was killed in 1973. The report stated that Mr. Kendall had requested in 1970 that Augustin Edwards, who was publisher of the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, as well as a Pepsi bottler in Chile, meet with high Nixon Administration officials to report on the political situation in Chile. (Pepsi bottling operations were later expropriated by the regime.) That meeting, which included Mr. Kendall, Mr. Edwards, Henry Kissinger and John N. Mitchell, was indeed held, and later the same day, Mr. Nixon met with Dr. Kissinger and Richard Helms, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Helms later testified that President Nixon had ordered at the follow-up meeting that Chile was to be saved from Allende "and he didn't care much how." Mr. Kendall says he sees nothing sinister, or for that matter even controversial, in his action.
Like many on the right, quite a few bottlers regarded the Kennedy administration's
policy toward Castro's Cuba as dangerously soft. Declassified FBI
files show that, after Kennedy's death, one man contacted the FBI regarding
threatening remarks that his brother, a bottler, had made in reference to the
president. Another convention attendee was identified in FBI reports as
having had a drink with Jack Ruby, the assassin of Lee Harvey Oswald, on
the night of November 21.
Though unhappy with Kennedy, these independent businessmen clearly
wanted to hear what Johnson had to say, which is why the Texas-born vice
president was the convention's keynote speaker.
By some estimates, the convention included close to eight thousand
bottlers -- so many, in fact, that it had taken over Dallas's largest venue, the
new Market Hall. This meant that when Kennedy's trip planners determined
where he would speak on November 22, one of the very few sufficiently large
and central venues had long since been taken. The Dallas Trade Mart thereby
became the most likely location for Kennedy's speech, with the route through
downtown to the Trade Mart, past the Texas School Book Depository, as the
most likely for the presidential motorcade.
In fact, the Trade Mart was secured by that most unlikely group of "friends"
of JFK, the Dallas Citizens Council, whose members' views were described by
the New York Times as "very conservative and range rightward." The council
had cosponsored the luncheon as a putative peace offering to JFK. Indeed, it
seems that JFK's itinerary in Dallas was circumscribed by the bottlers and the
Citizens Council.
The mere fact that eight thousand strangers had poured into Dallas in
the days before JFK's arrival should presumably have been of interest, yet
the Warren Commission ignored the event altogether.
Another interesting thing about the bottlers' convention is that the Army
Reserves volunteered to help facilitate an unusual extracurricular activity.
As noted in chapters 6 and 7, Poppy Bush's friend Jack Crichton was head of
a local Army Intelligence unit. Associates of Crichton's who were involved
with the Army Reserves had managed to get into the pilot car of Kennedy's
procession, with one as the driver. Crichton would also provide the interpreter
for Marina Oswald after her husband's arrest as the prime suspect in
Kennedy's murder.
According to a short item in the Dallas Morning News the day before
Kennedy was shot, members of the Dallas unit of the 90th Artillery Division
of the Army Reserve would be providing trucks and drivers to transport two
hundred orphans to a livestock arena for a rodeo sponsored by the bottlers'
group. This was to take place at nine P.M. on the night before Kennedy's arrival.
The arena was at Fair Park, near the site under which Crichton's Dallas
Civil Defense maintained its underground emergency bunker and communications
facility. Putting aside the Dickensian aspect of moving orphans in
Army trucks within an affluent American city, this raises some questions
about the reason for this odd maneuver. Whatever the true purpose of a small
platoon of Army vehicles being permitted to move about Dallas on purportedly
unrelated civilian business as the president's arrival was imminent, it appears
investigators never considered this incident worthy of a closer look.
Cumulatively, the bottlers' convention was responsible for a number of
curious circumstances that may be said to have some relevance to the
events surrounding Kennedy's death:
• The convention brought Nixon to Dallas.
• It brought eight thousand strangers to Dallas.
• It sent army vehicles into action on city streets the night before the
assassination.
• Its early reservation of one large venue helped determine Kennedy's
ultimate destination and thus the motorcade route.
In any event, as Nixon's adviser Stephen Hess has recounted, the former
vice president emerged deeply shaken about the timing of his Dallas visit. It
served to remind him that if he ever occupied the Oval Office, he too could
be vulnerable and targeted -- by the very same players. And his presence in
this incriminating spot was suggestive of wheels within wheels, to which he
of all people would have been alert. Were these intrigues what fueled President
Nixon's obsession with the CIA and its cloak-and-dagger activities in
the Kennedy era? This little-noted tug-of-war, a struggle over both current
policy and past history, would become an ongoing theme throughout Nixon's
term in office.
The Loyalist in Chief
At one time, Poppy Bush had worked hard to position himself as Richard
Nixon's most loyal servant. An example appeared in a 1971 profile of Poppy
in his role as Nixon's United Nations ambassador. Under the banner headline
"Bush Working Overtime," the Dallas Morning News of September 19,
1971, portrayed the ambassador as poised at the center of world affairs.
Leaning forward at his desk, a large globe next to him, his lean face bearing
a look of calm intensity, George H. W. Bush looked almost presidential.
The reporter for the Texas paper picked up on that. But he was equally
struck by Poppy's devotion to the sitting president. Ambassador Bush, he
noted, "is loyal -- some say to a fault -- to President Nixon, and frequently
quotes him in conversation."
It was the image Poppy wanted to convey. Even when the reporter asked
for his own views, he quickly deferred. "I like to think of myself as a pragmatist,
but I have learned to defy being labeled," Bush said. "What I can say
is that I am a strong supporter of the President."
Of course, when someone defies being labeled, it gives him extraordinary
flexibility to move in different circles, to collect information, to spin on
a dime -- in short, to behave a lot like a covert intelligence officer.
The image of Poppy as the ultimate loyalist was one he would project for
three more years -- right up to the final days of the Nixon presidency. Not
even Nixon, who was famously distrustful, seemed to doubt it. After winning
the 1972 election in the midst of the Watergate scandal, Nixon decided
to hedge his bets and clean house.
Planning to fire all but his most trusted aides, Nixon instructed Ehrlichman
to "eliminate everyone except George Bush. Bush will do anything for
our cause." This trust endured to the end of Nixon's presidency.
If indeed Bush was ever a Nixon loyalist, he certainly flipped the moment
the tide turned. This new stance emerged with the 1974 public release of
the transcript of Nixon's smoking gun conversation with Haldeman. As
Bush would record in his diary after Nixon's final cabinet meeting, the taped
conversation was irrefutable proof that "Nixon lied about his knowledge of
the cover-up of the Watergate scandal . . . I felt betrayed by his lie . . . I want
to make damn clear the lie is something we can't support."
Added Poppy: "This era of tawdry, shabby lack of morality has got to end."
This purported diary entry was most likely part of Poppy's perennial alibi
trail. It could have been Bush family tradecraft, something like Barbara's
Tyler, Texas, hair salon letter from November 22, 1963 -- always intended
for public view. Perhaps the most revealing part is the point at which Bush
summarizes the content of the smoking gun conversation. Poppy selectively
paraphrases a tiny part of that session, making it look as if Nixon had
ordered Haldeman (as Bush put it) to "block the FBI's investigation of the
Watergate break-in." This, Poppy asserted, "was proof [that] the President
had been involved, at least in the cover-up."
What Poppy omitted were two key things: that it was actually John Dean's
suggestion, not Nixon's, to block the investigation -- and that the CIA was at
the center of the intrigue to begin with.
Watergate's Unknown Prelude
The series of scandals that undid Richard Nixon's presidency are principally
identified with the 1972 burglary at the Democratic party offices in the Watergate
complex. But one could argue that Watergate -- and Nixon's
downfall -- really began in late 1969, during Nixon's first year in office, with
a phone call from a man almost no one today has heard of.
An independent oilman named John M. King dialed in to offer ideas for
improving Nixon's hold over Congress. Former White House staffer Jack
Gleason remembered the episode: "[King] called one day in '69 and said,
'You know, we have to start planning for 1970.' "
King's call suggested he was principally concerned about helping Nixon,
but in retrospect, there may have been more at stake. For one thing, King
was a member of the fraternity of independent oilmen who were growing
increasingly unhappy with Nixon. As we saw in the last chapter, the oil barons
were up in arms over threats to the oil depletion allowance, convinced that
Nixon was not solidly enough in their corner. But they had other gripes.
As Haldeman noted in a diary entry in December 1969: "Big problem persists
on oil import quotas. Have to make some decision, and can't win. If
we do what we should, and what the task force recommends, we'd apparently
end up losing at least a couple of senate seats, including George Bush in
Texas. Trying to figure out a way to duck the whole thing and shift it to Congress."
On a more personal level, King was mired in problems. The Denver-based
King had assembled a global empire with oil drilling and mining operations
in a hundred countries; he was known for a high-flying lifestyle and a gift
for leveraging connections. He even had two Apollo astronauts on
his board. In 1968, King had donated $750,000 to Nixon, and as a big donor,
his calls always got attention. But King was, according to a Time magazine
article of the period, something of a huckster. By late 1969, his empire
was on the verge of collapse. In the end, he would face jail and ruin.
Perhaps he was looking to secure intervention from the White House.
Perhaps it was just general business insurance. Or perhaps he was speaking
on behalf of his fellow in dependent oilmen.
In any event, King's pitch sounded like a good idea. He was proposing
that the Nixon White House funnel money from big GOP donors directly to
Senate and House candidates of its choice, rather than following the customary
method: letting the Republican Party determine the recipients. To do this
without provoking the wrath of the GOP establishment, King suggested
it be kept under wraps.
This idea appealed to the White House brass, and soon, a special operation
was being convened.
"As it matured, we had a couple of meetings with Ehrlichman and Haldeman
and went over some of the ground rules," said Gleason. Haldeman
brought the bare bones of the idea to Nixon, who thought it sounded fine.
Anything that involved secrecy and centralized White House control was
likely to find a receptive ear. Gleason's recollection is confirmed by a notation
in Haldeman's diary of December 11: "I had meeting with [Maurice]
Stans, Dent, and Gleason about setting up our own funding for backing the
good candidates in hot races. A little tricky to handle outside the RNC but
looks pretty good."
The White House political unit assigned the job of organizing and running
the new fund to its operative Gleason, an experienced GOP fundraiser.
Gleason was instructed by his boss, Harry Dent, to find an office for the operation.
When he suggested renting space in one of those prefurnished office
suites that come with secretarial and other services, he was told that this
would be too expensive.
That struck Gleason as odd, since it would not have cost much more and
would have been a pittance in relation to the large sums that would be
raised. But he followed his orders and rented something cheaper and more
discreet. Dent directed him to a townhouse on Nineteenth Street, in a residential
area near Dupont Circle. The space was not just in a townhouse but
in the basement of a townhouse. And not only that, it was in the back of the
basement. Reporters would later describe it as a "townhouse basement back
room" -- an arrangement guaranteed to raise eyebrows if ever discovered.
The way in which the funds were to be handled also struck Gleason as
unnecessarily complicated, and even furtive. While donors could simply --
and legally -- have written a single check to each candidate's campaign committee,
they were instructed instead to break up their donations into a number of
smaller checks. The checks were then routed through the townhouse,
where Gleason would pick them up and deposit them in a "Jack
Gleason, Agent" account at American Security and Trust Bank. Gleason
then would convert the amounts into cashier's checks and send them on to
the respective campaign committees, often further breaking each donation
up into smaller ones and spreading them over more than one campaign
committee of each candidate.
The ostensible reason for these complex arrangements was to enable the
White House to control the money. The actual effect, however, was to create
the impression of something illicit, such as a money-laundering operation
aimed at hiding the identities of the donors.
Somewhere along the way Gleason began to detect an odor stronger than
that of quotidian campaign operations. What seemed suspect to him was
not that Nixon would help Republican candidates -- that was how things
worked. What bothered him were the operational details. Many seemed
positively harebrained, the kind of things with which no president should be
associated. But Gleason just figured that Richard Nixon, or his subordinates,
had a blind spot when it came to appearances of impropriety.
Deep-Sixing Nixon
Late in the election season, Gleason's superiors told him to add a new component
to the Townhouse Operation. Gleason found this new development
particularly disturbing. It was called the "Sixes Project." Launched in October
1970, when the midterm elections were almost over, it provided an extra
personal donation of six thousand dollars to each of thirteen Senate
candidates -- in cash.
Gleason's job was simple enough: get on a plane, fly out to meet each of
the candidates, and personally hand over an envelope of cash. He was to add
a personal message: "Here's a gift from Dick and Pat." And he was to keep
meticulous receipts, noting who received the cash and the date of the transaction.
Gleason was not happy about his role as dispenser of envelopes full of
cash. As he told me in a 2008 interview,
Of all the silly things I've ever been asked to do in this life, traveling around with six thousand dollars to give the guy and say, "This is from Dick and Pat," was colossally bad . . . Now you crank me up, leave a paper trail a mile long and a mile wide of flight tickets, hotel reservations, rental cars, everything, and have me traipsing all over the country giving these guys six thousand dollars in cash, [and besides], the six thousand doesn't matter, doesn't get you anywhere. If we give you a quarter of a million, what's another six thousand? . . . The six thousand dollars itself was a disconnect, because everything else was largely done to keep the whole thing under wraps.
In those days, the campaign finance laws, most of which were at the state
level, were limited and rarely enforced. Reporting requirements were thin,
but those candidates who wanted to abide by the law made sure to report
any cash they received to their respective campaign committees. That posed
a challenge for a candidate caught in a grueling nonstop schedule, who was
handed an envelope of cash. It would be easy enough to forget to report it,
whether deliberately or accidentally.
Even back in 1973, Gleason could come to only one conclusion. When
special prosecutors in the Watergate investigation later grilled him about
the Townhouse Operation, he told them as much. "The purpose of these
contributions was to set up possible blackmail for these candidates later
on." However, at that point Gleason assumed that the sponsors of the
blackmail were Nixon loyalists -- perhaps even authorized by the president
himself.
Alarmed at this arrangement, and cognizant that he might be generating
myriad campaign law violations, Gleason asked the White House for a legal
analysis. But despite multiple requests, he never got it. Finally, he asked for
a letter stating that nothing he was being asked to do was illegal. (That letter,
Gleason later explained, would somehow disappear before it could arrive at
the offices of the Watergate prosecutors.)
Since the six-thousand-dollar donations were ostensibly generated by
"Dick and Pat," one could easily surmise that Richard Nixon, or those under
his authority, were indeed out to get something on Republican candidates.
Once they took the cash, the recipients would have to do as he wanted, or
else risk exposure. As Assistant Special Prosecutor Charles Ruff wrote to
his boss: "It has been our guess that [the Nixon White House] hoped to gain
some leverage over these candidates by placing cash in their hands which
they might not report."
Had this become known, Nixon would have had trouble explaining it.
Few would have believed that such a scheme could have been run under
White House auspices without Nixon's approval. And yet that seems to have
been the case. In fact, Nixon's name rarely appears in the Townhouse files of
Watergate prosecutors -- for whom the evidence of Nixon's wrongdoing
would have been the ultimate prize.
Even the complex and calculating Charles Colson, who served as special
counsel to the president in 1970, admitted to prosecutors that Nixon was
not involved. Colson said that he had sat in on a Townhouse planning meeting
and later briefed the president about "political prospects in that race" -
but "did not recall that the fundraising aspects were discussed with the
President."
John Mitchell, who was attorney general before he resigned in 1972 to
head up Nixon's reelection campaign, attended a meeting for "substantial
contributors" and later told prosecutors that "the President stopped by, but
was not present during discussions of campaign finances." Mitchell himself
denied participation in or knowledge of the Town house plan. Even
Herb Kalmbach, Nixon's personal lawyer, seems to have been involved only
in the most benign part of the operation: the legal solicitation of funds from
wealthy donors. Of course, all this could be about denials and deniability -
but as we shall see, it apparently was not.
Meet John Dean
At the time Town house was becoming operational, the position of counsel
to the president opened up. John Ehrlichman, Nixon's trusted aide, was
moving to head up domestic affairs, and Ehrlichman was looking for someone
to replace him -- a smart lawyer and good detail man who was also loyal
to the president. The man who came on board on July 27, 1970, was John
Wesley Dean III.
Dean arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue just as President Nixon was
trying to figure out how to deal with massive street demonstrations against
the Vietnam War. A month before, a White House staffer named Tom Huston
had drawn up a plan to spy on the demonstrators through electronic
surveillance, recruitment of campus informants, and surreptitious entry
into offices and meeting places.
In hindsight, this sounds especially odious, and it was, but at the time, and
from the vantage point of the administration and its supporters in the "silent
majority," America was besieged. The general atmosphere in the country
and the domestic violence, actual and hinted, surrounding the Vietnam War
debate, felt like chaos was descending. Even so, Attorney General John
Mitchell shot down the notorious "Huston Plan." John Dean, however, took
an immediate interest in some of the proposals.
Although his official duties centered on giving the president legal advice --
often on arcane technical matters -- Dean was considered a junior staffer and
had virtually no contact with Nixon. Nevertheless, the White House neophyte
quickly began taking on for himself the far edgier and dubious mantle of
political intelligence guru.
Among the bits of intelligence Dean collected were the details of the
Townhouse Operation. In November 1970, following the midterm elections,
Jack Gleason turned over all his files to the White House, where
Haldeman had them delivered to Dean. Watergate investigators would later
discover that "Haldeman also gave Dean several little notebooks which pertained
to the 1970 fundraising." Those little notebooks would have told Dean who the
donors were, how much they gave, and the identity of the recipients.
Shortly after the files ended up in Dean's hands, the media began
receiving -- perhaps coincidentally -- leaks about the Townhouse Operation.
One of the first reports was an AP article with no byline that appeared
in the New York Times on December 27, 1970. It said that seven
ambassadors had received their positions as rewards for their contributions
to the Townhouse Operation: "Mr. Jack Gleason left the staff of a
White House political operative, Harry Dent, this fall to run the fund-
raising campaign from a basement back office in a Washington townhouse."
And there it was: Gleason caught up in something that sounded
sinister, complete with the townhouse basement back office, all purportedly
on behalf of Richard Nixon.
In February 1972, someone cranked Townhouse back up again. Jim Polk,
an investigative reporter at the Washington Star with an impressive track
record on campaign finance matters, got more information about the fund
from "inside sources."
Polk published an article headlined "Obscure Lawyer Raises Millions for
Nixon." It sounded even more disturbing than the previous one. Polk's article
did two things: it introduced the public to Nixon's personal lawyer Kalmbach
and it provided many new details about the Townhouse fund.
A little-known lawyer in Newport Beach, Calif., has raised millions of dollars in campaign contributions as an unpublicized fund- raiser . . . [and] as Nixon's personal agent . . . to collect campaign checks from Republican donors Kalmbach helped to raise nearly $3 million in covert campaign money . . . The checks were sent through a townhouse basement used by former Nixon political aide Jack A. Gleason. But the operation was run from inside the White House by presidential assistant H.R. (Bob) Haldeman . . . Only a portion of this money has shown up on public records. The rest of the campaign checks have been funneled through dummy committees.
When I spoke to Polk in 2008, not surprisingly, he no longer recalled the
identity of his source. But whoever had leaked this story to him was no
friend of Nixon's. Yet if it was intended to provoke further interest, it failed.
Someone had attempted to light a fuse with Townhouse, but it did not ignite.
Just four months later, however, another fuse was lit. And this one would
burn on and on.
The Brazen Burglary
If Townhouse was engineered to discredit Nixon, it had one potential flaw.
The wrongdoing involved technical financial matters that reporters might
find daunting. Watergate, on the other hand, was inherently sexy; it had all
the elements of the crime drama it became. The break-in was brazen and
easily grasped, and carried out in such a manner as to just about guarantee
both failure and discovery. It also involved a cast of characters that neither
reporters nor television cameras could resist (as the Watergate hearings later
would demonstrate). It was like a made-for-TV movie: burglars in business
suits, living in a fancy suite near the scene of the crime; Cuban expatriates;
documents in pockets leading to the White House. Even Nixon had to interrupt
his reelection campaign to confront it.
But the burglars didn't appear to take anything, so what was the intended
crime? Breaking and entering -- for what purpose?
As with the JFK assassination, theories abound. The burglars were found
with bugging equipment. But that made little sense; Nixon didn't have
much to worry about from his presumed Democratic opponent, George
McGovern. The risks of a bugging operation far outweighed any conceivable
gains. And if Nixon had really wanted inside dope on the McGovern
campaign, which he hardly needed, he could have sent teams into McGovern's
headquarters up on Capitol Hill, or to Miami, where the Democrats
would hold their convention.
If, on the other hand, the intent was to fire the public imagination, the
Watergate complex was far better -- and Washington itself a necessary locale
if the national press was to stay with the story week after week.
With all this in mind, Nixon's observation in his memoirs that "the whole
thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of
a setup" seems on the mark.
If the Cubans were really trying to do the job, their supervisors were
guilty of malpractice. They might as well have called the D.C. police to reserve
an interrogation room.
The flubs were so obvious it was as if they were the work of amateurs --
which it was not. Burglary team member James McCord left tape horizontally
over a lock, so that it could be spotted, as it was, by a security guard
when the door was closed. If he had taped the lock vertically, it would have
been invisible to a passerby. And if the intent was to pull off a real burglary,
there was no need for tape anyway -- as the burglars were already inside.
Even so, after the security guard discovered and removed the tape, McCord
put it right back.
The entire operation reflected poor judgment. An experienced burglar
would have known not to carry any sort of identification, and certainly not
identification that led back to the boss. How elementary is that? Among the
incriminating materials found on the Watergate burglars was a check with
White House consultant E. Howard Hunt's signature on it -- and Hunt's
phone number at the White House, in addition to checks drawn on Mexican
bank accounts. Despite the obvious risks, the burglars were also instructed
by Hunt to register at the Watergate Hotel, and to keep their room keys in
their pockets during the mission. These keys led investigators straight back
to an array of incriminating evidence, not the least damaging of which was
a suitcase containing the burglars' ID cards. Everything pointed back to
CREEP and the White House.
The most interesting thing was that the materials identified the burglars
as connected not just to the White House, but to the CIA as well. And not
just to the CIA, but to a group within the CIA that had been active during
the controversial period that included the Bay of Pigs invasion and the
assassination of JFK.
Hunt, whose status in the CIA was described earlier, was a high-ranking
(GS-15) officer and a member of the "Plumbers," a White House special
investigations unit ostensibly dedicated to stopping government leaks to the
media. As discussed in chapter 6, Hunt had been a key player in the coup in
Guatemala and the Bay of Pigs invasion, in addition to working very closely
with Allen Dulles himself. As noted previously, Dulles was in Dallas shortly
before November 22.
And Hunt had been there on the very day of the assassination, according
to an account confirmed in 1978 by James Angleton, the longtime CIA
counterintelligence chief. Angleton, clearly concerned that investigations
would uncover Hunt's presence in Dallas anyway, went so far as to alert a
reporter and a House Committee to Hunt's being in the city that day, and
then opined that Hunt had been involved in unauthorized activities while
there; 'Some very odd things were going on that were out of our control."
Watergate burglar and electronic surveillance expert James McCord, like
Hunt, had also been a GS-15 agent, serving for over a decade in the CIA's
Office of Security. Around the time of the Kennedy assassination, he began
working with anti-Castro Cubans on a possible future invasion of the island.
Allen Dulles once introduced McCord to an Air Force colonel, saying,
"This man is the best man we have." Regarding Nixon, McCord dismissed
him to a colleague as not a team player, not "one of us."
In a long-standing tradition, both Hunt and McCord had officially "resigned"
from the agency prior to the Watergate time frame. But their continued
involvement in CIA-related cover operations suggested otherwise.
Indeed, as noted earlier in the book, many figures, including Poppy Bush's
oil business colleague Thomas J. Devine, officially took retirement prior to
participating in seemingly independent operations in which deniability was
crucial.
Though Hunt claimed to have cut his CIA ties, he actually went out of
his way to draw attention to those ties while working in the Nixon White
House. He ostentatiously ordered a limousine to drive him from the
White House out to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. It was as though
he was trying to broadcast the notion that Nixon was working closely with
the agency -- with which, as we now know, the president was in reality battling.
After Hunt's alleged retirement, he was employed at the Mullen Company,
a public relations firm that served as a CIA cover. In a 1973 memo, Charles
Colson recounted a meeting he'd just had with Senate Republican minority
leader Howard Baker. Charles Colson wrote, "Baker said that the Mullen
Company was a CIA front, that [Hunt's] job with the Mullen Company was
arranged by [CIA director] Helms personally." Baker also informed Colson
that, during Hunt's time at the Mullen Company, his pay had been adjusted to
the exact salary he would have been making had he stayed at the spy agency.
Eugenio Martinez, one of the anti-Castro Cuban burglars, was another
CIA operative in the break-in crew. Indeed, he was the one member of the
team who remained actively on the CIA payroll, filing regular reports on the
activities of the team to his Miami case officer. Then there was Bernard L.
Barker, who first worked as an FBI in formant before being turned over to
the CIA during the run-up to the Bay of Pigs. Frank Sturgis, too, had CIA
connections. Martinez, Barker, and Sturgis had worked with Hunt and Mc-
Cord on the Second Naval Guerrilla operation.
So Nixon, who had been trying to see the CIA's file on the Bay of Pigs,
was now staring at a burglary purportedly carried out in his name by veterans
of the same "Bay of Pigs thing" with strong CIA ties. It was like a flashing
billboard warning. CIA professionals, Cuban exiles, all tied to the events
of 1961 through 1963, suddenly appearing in the limelight and tying themselves
and their criminal activity to the president.
If most of us ever knew, we have probably long since forgotten that before
the June 1972 Watergate break-in, there was another Watergate break-in
by the same crew. With this earlier one, though, they were careful to avoid
detection and were not caught. At that time, they installed listening devices.
The second burglary, the one that seemingly was designed for detection,
and designed to be traced back to the Nixon White House, ostensibly revolved
around removing listening devices installed earlier -- and therefore drawing
attention to the devices and the surveillance.
The conclusion one would likely draw from their being caught red-handed
is that Dick Nixon is up to yet another manifestation of his twisted and illegal
inclinations. And what were they listening to? Purportedly, DNC personnel
were arranging for "dates" for distinguished visitors with a call-girl ring. The
ring was operating from down the street, not far from where the bugs were
being monitored. The conclusion is that Nixon was perhaps trying to sexually
blackmail the Democrats. It got more and more objectionable.
But the fact is that no evidence shows Nixon wanting to sexually blackmail
Democrats, nor wanting to install bugs at the DNC, nor wanting to
order a burglary to remove the bugs. Yet somebody else clearly had a good
imagination, and a talent for executing a script that was magnificently inculpatory
of someone who would appear to deserve removal from the highest
office in the land.
Eventually, Americans would learn that the Watergate break-ins were
not the first such operation that made Nixon look bad, and not the first coordinated
by Hunt and featuring Cuban veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Back in September 1971, the team hit the Beverly Hills office of Dr.
Lewis Fielding, the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the whistle-blower who
leaked the explosive Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. First, though,
Nixon, who was initially indifferent over the leak, was persuaded to take on
the Times for publishing the documents, a posture that would position him
as a foe of public disclosure. It also escalated his already adversarial relationship
with the news media -- a relationship that would become a severe
disadvantage to Nixon as the Watergate "revelations" began to emerge.
Nixon was also persuaded to authorize the formation of a leak-busting
White House group, which was soon dubbed "the Plumbers." Soon, purportedly
operating on Nixon's behalf -- but without his actual approval -- the
Hunt team broke into Dr. Fieldingís office, having been told to photograph
Ellsberg's patient files.
However, as with Watergate, the burglary appears to have had an ulterior
motive. Senator Baker, ranking Republican on the Senate Watergate Committee,
learned of this, according to White House special counsel Charles
Colson, when Baker interviewed the Cuban émigré Eugenio Martinez, who
participated in the burglaries of both Fielding's office and the DNC office in
Watergate:
Baker told me of his interview with Martinez who said that there were no patient records in Dr. Fielding's office, that he, Martinez, was very disappointed when they found nothing there, but Hunt on the other hand seemed very pleased and as a matter of fact broke out a bottle of champagne when the three men returned from the job. Martinez says that he has participated in three hundred or four hundred similar CIA operations, that this was clearly a 'cover' operation with no intention of ever finding anything.
In fact, though the burglars were ostensibly seeking records while on a
covert mission, they did not act like people who wished to avoid discovery. In
addition to smashing the windows and prying open the front door with a crowbar,
the burglars proceeded to vandalize the office, scattering papers, pills, and
files across the floor. The result was to ensure the generation of a crime report,
establishing a record of the burglary. The break-in would not become public
knowledge until John Dean dramatically revealed it two years later --
and implicitly tied Nixon to it by citing the involvement of Egil Krogh, the man in
charge of Nixon's so-called Plumbers unit.
Dean and his lawyers showed far greater enthusiasm for pursuing the
Beverly Hills break-in than even the prosecutors. As Renata Adler wrote in
the New Yorker: "Dean's attorney, Charles Shaffer, practically had to spell it
out to [the prosecutors] that they would be taking part in an obstruction of
justice themselves if they did not pass the information on."
Like Watergate, the Fielding office break-in was on its face a very bad idea
that was not approved by Nixon but certain to deeply embarrass him and
damage his public standing when it was disclosed. The principal accomplishment
of the break-in was to portray Nixon as a man who had no decency
at all -- purportedly even stooping to obtain private psychiatric records
of a supposed foe. This was almost guaranteed to provoke public revulsion.
The notion that a group surrounding the president could be working to
do him in might sound preposterous to most of us. But not to veterans of
America's clandestine operations, where the goal abroad has often been to
do just that. And Nixon was a perfect target: solitary, taciturn, with few
friends, and not many more people he trusted. Because of this, he had to
hire virtual strangers in the White House, and as a result, the place was
teeming with schemers. Nixon was too distrustful, and yet not distrustful
enough. It was supremely ironic. Nixon, ridiculed for his irrational hatred
and "paranoia" toward the Eastern Establishment, may in the end have been
done in by forces controlled by that very establishment. Of course, it was
nothing less than that level of power to remove presidents, plural, one after
the other if necessary.
Among the myriad plots was the so-called Moorer-Radford affair, cited in
chapter 9, in which the military actually was spying on Nixon and stealing
classified documents in an attempt to gain inside information, influence
policy, and perhaps even unseat the president.
That Nixon could actually have been the victim of Watergate, and not the
perpetrator, will not sit well with many, especially those with a professional
stake in Nixon's guilt. Yet three of the most thoroughly reported books on
Watergate from the past three decades have come to the same conclusion:
that Nixon and/or his top aides were indeed set up. Each of these books takes
a completely different approach, focuses on different aspects, and relies on
essentially different sets of facts and sources. These are 1984's Secret Agenda,
by former Harper's magazine Washington editor Jim Hougan; 1991's Silent
Coup, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin; and 2008's The Strong Man, by
James Rosen.
Rosen's The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate is a biography
of Nixon's close friend, attorney general, and campaign chief, the
highest-ranking official ever to be sentenced to prison. The book, on which
Rosen labored for seventeen years, is based on sources not previously interviewed
and also on unprecedented access to documents generated by the Senate
Watergate Committee and Watergate special prosecutors. Rosen asserts
that the Watergate operation was authorized behind Mitchell's back by his
subordinate Jeb Magruder and by John Dean and was deliberately sabotaged
in its execution by burglar and former CIA officer James McCord. As Rosen
puts it:
Mitchell knew he had been set up. In later years, his mind reeled at the singular confluence of amazing characters that produced Watergate -- Dean, Magruder, Liddy, Helms, Hunt, McCord, Martinez -- and reckoned himself and the president, neither of whom enjoyed foreknowledge of the Watergate break-in, victims in the affair. "The more I got into this," Mitchell said in June 1987, "the more I see how these sons of bitches have not only done Nixon in but they've done me in."
Rosen also writes:
The [Watergate] tapes unmasked Nixon not as the take-charge boss of a criminal conspiracy but rather as an aging and confused politician lost in a welter of detail, unable to distinguish his Magruders from his Strachans, uncertain who knew what and when, what each player had told the grand jury, whose testimony was direct, whose hearsay.
My independent research takes the argument one step further, and the facts in a completely
new direction. It leads to an even more disturbing conclusion as to what
was really going on, and why.
Woodward at His Post
The accepted narrative of Nixon as the villain of Watergate is based largely on
the work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They both were young reporters
on the Washington Post's Metro desk when the story fell into their
laps.
When it was over, they were household names. Woodward in particular would
go on to become the nation's most visible investigative journalist, and indeed
the iconic representation of that genre. The work of "Woodstein" would play a
key role in enhancing the franchise of the Post itself. Yet this oeuvre -- in
particular the role of Woodward -- has become somewhat suspect among those
who have taken a second and third look -- including Columbia Journalism
Review contributing editor Steve Weinberg, in a November/December 1991
article.
Woodward did not fit the profile of the typical daily print reporter. Young,
midwestern, Republican, he attended Yale on an ROTC scholarship and
then spent five years in the Navy. He had begun with a top-secret security
clearance on board the USS Wright, specializing in communications, including
with the White House.
His commanding officer was Rear Admiral Robert O. Welander, who
would later be implicated in the military spy ring in the Nixon White
House, mentioned in chapter 9. According to Silent Coup, an exhaustive
study of the military espionage scandal, Woodward then arrived in Washington,
where he worked on the staff of Admiral Thomas Moorer, chief of naval
operations, again as a communications officer, this time one who provided
briefings and documents to top brass in the White House on national security
matters. According to this account, in 1969-70, Woodward frequently
walked through the basement offices of the White House West Wing with
documents from Admiral Moorer to General Alexander Haig, who served
under Henry Kissinger.
In a 2008 interview, Woodward categorically denied having any intelligence
connections. He also denied having worked in the White House or
providing briefings there. "It's a matter of record in the Navy what I did,
what I didn't do," Woodward said. "And this Navy Intelligence, Haig and so
forth, you know, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge it if it's true. It just
isn't. Can you accept that?"
Journalist Len Colodny, however, has produced audiotapes of interviews
by his Silent Coup coauthor, Robert Gettlin, with Admiral Moorer, former defense
secretary Melvin Laird, Pentagon spokesman Jerry Friedheim -- and
even with Woodward's own father, Al -- speaking about Bob's White House
service.
At a minimum, Woodward's entry into journalism received a valuable
outside assist, according to an account provided by Harry Rosenfeld, a retired
Post editor, to the Saratogian newspaper in 2004:
Bob had come to us on very high recommendations from someone in the White House. He had been an intelligence officer in the Navy and had served in the Pentagon. He had not been exposed to any newspaper. We gave him a tryout because he was so highly recommended. We customarily didn't do that. We wanted to see some clips, and he had none of that. We tried him out, and after a week or two I asked my deputy, "What's with this guy?" And he said well, he's a very bright guy but he doesn't know how to put the paper in the typewriter. But he was bright, there was that intensity about him and his willingness, and he acted maturely. So we decided because he had come so highly recommended and he had shown certain strengths that we would help get him a job at the Montgomery County Sentinel.
In 2008, some time after I spoke to Woodward, I reached Rosenfeld. He
said he did not recall telling the Saratogian that Woodward had been hired
on the advice of someone in the White House. He did, however, tell me that
he remembered that Woodward had been recommended by Paul Ignatius,
the Post's president. Prior to taking over the Post's presidency, Ignatius had
been Navy secretary for President Johnson.
In a 2008 interview, Ignatius told me it was possible that he had a hand
in at least recommending Woodward. "It's possible that somebody asked
me about him, and it's possible that I gave him a recommendation," Ignatius
said. "I don't remember initiating anything, but I can't say I didn't." I
asked Ignatius how a top Pentagon administrator such as himself would
even have known of a lowly lieutenant, such as Woodward was back in
those days, and Ignatius said he did not recall.
In September 1971, after one year of training at the Maryland-based Sentinel,
Woodward was hired at the Washington Post . The Post
itself is steeped
in intelligence connections. The paper's owner, the Graham family, were, as
noted in chapter 3, aficionados of the apparatus, good friends of top spies,
and friends also of Prescott Bush. They even helped fund Poppy Bush's earliest
business venture. Editor Ben Bradlee was himself a Yale graduate who,
like Woodward, had spent time in naval intelligence during World War II.
(As noted earlier, Poppy Bush had also been associated with naval intelligence
during World War II: prior to beginning his work with the CIA, he had
been involved with top-secret aerial reconnaissance photography.)
Woodward demonstrated his proclivity for clandestine sources a month
before the Watergate break-in, in his coverage of the shooting and serious
wounding of presidential candidate George Wallace at a shopping center in
Washington's Maryland suburbs. A lone gunman, Arthur Bremer, would be
convicted. Woodward impressed his editors with his tenacity on the case,
and his contacts. As noted in a journalistic case study published by Columbia
University:
At the time, according to [Post editors Barry] Sussman and [Harry]
Rosenfeld, Woodward said he had "a friend" who might be able to
help. Woodward says his "friend" filled him in on Bremer's background
and revealed that Bremer had also been stalking other
presidential candidates.
As to Woodward's initial introduction to the newspaper, nobody seems to
have questioned whether a recommendation from someone in the White
House would be an appropriate reason for the Post to hire a reporter. Nor
does anyone from the Post appear to have put a rather obvious two and two
together, and noted that Woodward made quick work of bringing down the
president, and therefore wondered who at the White House recommended
Woodward in the first place -- and with what motivation.
Others, however, were more curious. After Charles Colson met with Senator
Howard Baker and his staff -- including future senator Fred Thompson --
he recounted the session in a previously unpublished memo to file:
The CIA has been unable to determine whether Bob Woodward was employed by the agency. The agency claims to be having difficulty checking personnel files. Thompson says that he believes the delay merely means that they don't want to admit that Woodward was in the agency. Thompson wrote a lengthy memo to Baker last week complaining about the CIA's non-cooperation, the fact that they were supplying material piecemeal and had been very uncooperative. The memo went into the CIA relationship with the press, specifically Woodward. Senator Baker sent the memo directly to [CIA Director] Colby with a cover note and within a matter of a few hours, Woodward called Baker and was incensed over the memo. It had been immediately leaked to him.
Woodward's good connections would help generate a series of exclusive-
access interviews that would result in rapidly produced bestselling books.
One was Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987, a controversial book
that relied in part, Woodward claimed, on a deathbed interview -- not
recorded -- with former CIA director William Casey. The 543-page book,
which came out as Poppy Bush was seeking the presidency, contained no
substantive mentions of any role on the part of Bush in these "secret wars,"
though Bush was both vice president with a portfolio for covert ops and a
former CIA director.
Asked how it was possible to leave Bush out of such a detailed account of
covert operations during his vice presidency, Woodward replied, "Bush was,
well, I don't think he was -- What was it he said at the time? I was out of the
loop?" Woodward went on to be blessed with unique access to George W.
Bush -- a president who did not grant a single interview to America's top
newspaper, the New York Times, for nearly half his administration -- and the
automatic smash bestsellers that guaranteed. Woodward would also distinguish
himself for knowing about the administration's role in leaking the
identity of CIA undercover officer Valerie Plame but not writing or saying
anything about it, despite an ongoing investigation and media tempest.
When this was revealed, Woodward issued an apology to the Post.
To its credit, the Washington Post in these years had other staffers doing
some of the best reporting on the intelligence establishment. Perhaps the
most revealing work came prior to Nixon's tenure, while Woodward was still
doing his naval service. In a multipart, front-page series by Richard Harwood
in early 1967, the paper began reporting the extent to which the CIA
had penetrated civil institutions not just abroad, but at home as well. "It was
not enough for the United States to arm its allies, to strengthen governmental
institutions, or to finance the industrial establishment through economic
and military programs," Harwood wrote. "Intellectuals, students, educators,
trade unionists, journalists and professional men had to be reached directly
through their private concerns." Journalists too. Even Carl Bernstein later
wrote about the remarkable extent of the CIA's penetration of newsrooms,
detailing numerous examples, in a 1977 Rolling Stone article. As for the Post
itself, Bernstein wrote:
When Newsweek was purchased by the
Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press. Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graham, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
In 1965-66, an accredited Newsweek stringer in the Far East was in fact a CIA contract employee earning an annual salary of $10,000 from the Agency, according to Robert T. Wood, then a CIA officer in the Hong Kong station. Some Newsweek correspondents and stringers continued to maintain covert ties with the Agency into the 1970s, CIA sources said.
Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements.
When the Watergate burglary story broke, Bob Woodward got the assignment,
in part, his editor Barry Sussman recalled, because he never
seemed to leave the building. "I worked the police beat all night," Wood-
ward said in an interview with authors Tom Rosenstiel and Amy S.
Mitchell, "and then I'd go home -- I had an apartment five blocks from the
Post -- and sleep for a while. I'd show up in the newsroom around 10 or 11
[in the morning] and work all day too. People complained I was working too
hard." So when the bulletin came in, Woodward was there. The result was
a front-page account revealing that E. Howard Hunt's name appeared in the
address book of one of the burglars and that a check signed by Hunt had
been found in the pocket of another burglar, who was Cuban. It went further:
Hunt, Woodward reported, worked as a consultant to White House counsel
Charles Colson.
Thus, Woodward played a key role in tying the burglars to Nixon.
Woodward would later explain in All the President's Men (coauthored with
Bernstein) that to find out more about Hunt, he had "called an old friend
and sometimes source who worked for the federal government." His friend
did not like to be contacted at this office and "said hurriedly that the break-
in case was going to 'heat up,' but he couldn't explain and hung up." Thus
began Woodward's relationship with Deep Throat, that mysterious source
who, Woodward would later report, served in the executive branch of government
and had access to information in the White House and CREEP.
Based on tips from Deep Throat, Woodward and Bernstein began to "follow
the money," writing stories in September and October 1972 on a political
"slush fund" linked to CREEP. One story reported that the fund had
financed the bugging of the Democratic Party's Watergate headquarters as
well as other intelligence-gathering activities. While Nixon coasted to a
landslide victory over the liberal Democrat George McGovern, the story
seemed to go on hiatus. But just briefly.
Poppy Enters, Stage Right
If someone did want to undermine the president from outside the White
House, he couldn't have found a better perch than the chairmanship of the
Republican Party.
Right after the election, Poppy Bush, again utilizing his pull with Nixon,
had persuaded the president to bring him back from his cushy U.N. post
and install him at the Republican National Committee. This put him at the
very epicenter of the nationwide Republican elite that would ultimately
determine whether Nixon would stay or go.
As chairman of the RNC, Poppy was expected to be the president's chief
advocate, especially to the party faithful. He would travel widely, interact
with big donors and party activists. If anyone would have their finger on the
pulse of the loyalist base, it was Poppy. He would have a good sense of what
would keep supporters in line, and conversely, what might convince them to
abandon ship.
But Poppy was unique among RNC chairmen over the years in that he
had convinced Nixon to let him maintain an official presence at the White
House. Just as Nixon had permitted him to participate in cabinet meetings
as U.N. ambassador, he now continued to extend that privilege while Poppy
ran the RNC. This was unprecedented for someone in such an overtly partisan
position.
Here was a man closely connected to the CIA, as we have seen, now both
running the Republican Party and sitting in on cabinet deliberations. An
intelligence officer couldn't have asked for a better perch. Moreover, this put
him in the catbird seat just as Watergate began heating up.
But Poppy was even more wired into Nixonworld. When he came to the
RNC, he hired Harry Dent and Tom Lias, the top officials of Nixon's Political
Affairs office, which had established the Town house Operation. Dent was
the architect of Nixon's Southern strategy, with which Poppy Bush and his
backers were closely allied. Lias had ties to Poppy from before working in
the White House. He had been a top organizer for the Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee, strategizing how to elect people like Poppy to
formerly Democratic seats in the South.
After Poppy came to Washington, the two often socialized. According to
Pierre Ausloos, stepfather of Lias's daughter, and a friend of the family, "On
weekends, Bush would always invite [Lias] for a barbecue party at his house
here in Washington." Ausloos also remembers that during the 1968
Republican convention, Liasís daughter's babysitter was Poppy's son, George
W. Bush.
Thus, at the time Dent and Lias were installed in the White House Political
Affairs office, they were already close with Bush. Indeed, right after the
1970 election and the termination of the Town house Operation, Bush took
Lias with him to New York, where Lias served as a top aide on Poppy's
United Nations staff. The U.N. choice struck people who knew Lias as odd.
Lias had no relevant qualifications or knowledge for the U.N. post, just as
Poppy himself didn't.
Poppy's decision, once he moved to the RNC, to hire both Lias and
Dent -- the two men supervising Jack Gleason's Town house Operation --
is surely significant.
Meanwhile, Poppy Bush and his team had already been in contact with
John Dean.
In a brief 2008 conversation, in which a prickly Dean sought to control
the conditions of the interview, I asked him whether he had any dealings
with Bush. "I think there are some phone calls on my phone logs, but I
never met with him personally," he said.
Indeed, phone logs show that on June 24, 1971, Ambassador Bush called
Dean, and on December 6, 1971, Tom Lias of Ambassador Bush's office
called. The logs show other calls from Lias as well. It is not clear -- nor did
Dean volunteer an opinion -- why Bush and Lias would have been calling
him at all.
Slumming in Greenwich
When the Senate created a committee to investigate Watergate, there was no
guarantee that anything would come of it. The perpetrators -- the burglars
and their supervisors, Hunt and Liddy -- were going on trial, and it was uncertain
whether the hearings would produce any further insights. Moreover,
the committee featured four rather somnolent Democrats and three Republicans,
two of them staunch Nixon loyalists.
This left only one wild card: Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican from
Connecticut.
A freshman, and an independent one, Weicker was not disposed to knee-
jerk defense of Nixon. Furthermore, he saw himself as a crusader. At six feet
six, Weicker was imposing, considered basically well-intentioned, a little
naive, and in love with publicity. He had gotten his political start in the
Bush hometown of Greenwich, Connecticut; and like the Bushes, he was
heir to a family fortune, in his case from two grandfathers who owned the
Squibb pharmaceutical company.
But there the similarities ended. Weicker chose for his base Greenwich's
Third Voting District, which consisted almost entirely of working-class
Italians. "Just decent, hard-working, down-to-basics families," Weicker
would say. "Had I been raised as a typical Republican in the salons of Fair-
field County, discussing international issues at teas and cocktail parties,
I know my career would have been a short one once off the Greenwich
electoral scene." In 1960, Weicker aligned himself with Albert Morano,
a congressional candidate opposed by the Bush family. Now the Bushes
saw Weicker as a traitor to his class. Over the years, Weicker and Bush
would generally maintain a cool but civil relationship, driven by political
expediency.
"I think he was viewed as an outsider from day one, and it was a perspective
he relished," said Townhouse operative Jack Gleason. "Because he
always used to joke about 'the Round Hill boys out to get me again' every
time he was up for reelection."
Weicker had arrived in Washington in 1968, following his election to the
House of Representatives. Given the past, this would have made him a
not-very-welcome colleague of Poppy Bush. And Poppy probably was not
enthused when, after only two years in the House, Weicker was elected
to Prescott Bush's old Senate seat -- in the same year Poppy lost his second
Senate bid. Weicker's star was rising faster than Poppy's -- and in the Bush
home state to boot. It must have rankled.
Still, Weicker's least endearing qualities -- his considerable ambition,
love of publicity, and penchant for self-aggrandizement -- would shortly
prove useful in at least one respect: as a champion of the "truth" on the
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, commonly
known as the Watergate Committee. The same Republican maverick who
had no qualms about challenging his party's leadership in Connecticut
would soon debut his maverick persona on the national stage.
In his memoirs, Weicker writes that he was given the Watergate Committee
assignment because he was one of only two Republicans who volunteered
and that his interest in "campaign financing" and dwindling faith in
the democratic process spurred his personal interest. Interestingly, the
other Republican volunteer, stalwart conservative Edward J. Gurney of Florida,
had won his seat with the help of Bush's top political lieutenant, Jimmy
Allison -- and eldest son George W. Bush, who took the extraordinary step of
securing a leave from his National Guard unit in 1968, when he had barely
begun his military training. The other Republican on the committee was Minority
Leader Howard Baker, a moderate. Weicker was the only Republican
on the committee with the inclination to prove his independence from the
party and openly challenge the president.
By the spring of 1973, six defendants had been sentenced in the DNC burglary,
and the Watergate hearings were due to begin. There was now an opportunity
for Nixon to put the whole Watergate affair behind him, without
mortal damage to his presidency. Weicker, however, already saw his role as
an honest broker, and he criticized Nixon's attempts at tamping down the
matter. "I think the national interest is achieved by opening, not closing, the
White House doors," he said. He added that he would vote in favor of subpoenas
for White House officials to appear before the committee.
Poppy Bush apparently agreed. On March 20, the day after Weicker's remarks,
Poppy went to see Nixon at the Oval Office. In his usual oblique way,
ascribing his advice to others, he urged Nixon to send John Dean to testify.
BUSH: We're getting hit a little bit, Mr. President . . . It's building, and the mail's getting heavier . . . NIXON: What do you think you can do about it? . . . We've got hearings coming up. The hearings will make it worse. BUSH: . . . I was speaking with the executives at the Bull Elephants The guy said to me, why doesn't the President send Dean? . . . The disclosure is what they're calling for. NIXON: We are cooperating They don't want any cooperation. They aren't interested in getting the facts. They're only interested in [politicalgains?] I wish there were an answer to Watergate, but I just don't know any . . . I don't know a damn thing to do. [emphasis added]
John Ehrlichman remembers that meeting well, as noted in his memoirs.
"Bush argued that the only way to blunt the current onslaught in the newspapers
and on television was for the president to be totally forthcoming -- to
tell everything he knew about all aspects of Watergate."
This was a significant moment, where Poppy demonstrates a possible
connection to and interest in Dean. It was a sort of specific advice that warrants
attention, because it is an indication that the outsider Bush is unusually
well informed about who knows what inside the White House --
and encourages Nixon to let Dean begin confessing his knowledge. When I
asked Dean in 2008 why he thought Poppy Bush was suggesting he testify,
he said he had no idea.
Nixon resisted Poppy's advice to have Dean testify because, Nixon maintained,
there was no White House staff involvement in Watergate, and
therefore Dean's testimony would serve only to break executive privilege,
once and for all. "The president can't run his office by having particularly
his lawyer go up and testify," Nixon told Poppy.
If Poppy Bush seemed to have unusually good intelligence as to what
was happening in the Oval Office, it might have had something to do with
a good friend of his who was right in there with Nixon and Dean during the
most critical days of Watergate. Richard A. Moore, a lawyer who served as a
kind of elder statesman off of whom Nixon and Mitchell could bounce
ideas, was, like Poppy, an alumnus of Andover, Yale, and Skull and Bones.
Moore served as special assistant to the chief of military intelligence during
World War II and is believed to have transitioned to civilian intelligence
after the war. Over the years, Moore was practically a member of the
extended Bush clan, exchanging intimate notes with Poppy and even joining
family dinners.
Moore shows up in background roles on a number of Nixon tapes, and
phone logs show a flurry of phone calls between Moore and Dean, especially
in the final weeks before Dean turned on Nixon. In a little-reported taped telephone
conversation from March 16, Dean tells Nixon that he and Moore are
working on a Watergate report; he also mentions that he and Moore drive
home together. On March 20, in an Oval Office meeting featuring Nixon,
Dean, and Moore -- just prior to Nixon's meeting with Poppy Bush --
Moore can be heard typing the report in the background.
Dean would later write that the term "cancer" as used in his famous "cancer
on the presidency" briefing had been suggested by Moore -- who though a close
Nixon adviser in these sensitive days, managed to emerge from Watergate
obscure and unscathed. His Watergate testimony did not support Dean, but
he tended to be ambiguous. As Time magazine noted on July 23, 1973,
"The Moore testimony was certainly not evidence that the President
had had prior knowledge of the Plumbers' felonious break-in. But it seemingly
betrayed a curious nonchalance on the President's part toward questionable
activities by White House staffers."
Later, with Nixon departing and Ford preparing to become president,
Moore urged Ford to make Poppy Bush his vice president, arguing that
Bush had strong economic credentials. Moore specifically cited Poppy's ties
to Wall Street through his father and grandfather, "both highly respected investment
bankers in New York." Moore would go on to work on all of Poppy
Bush's presidential campaigns, including his unsuccessful 1980 bid, and
would in 1989 be named by Poppy as his ambassador to Ireland.
Repeat After Me
Immediately after Poppy tried to convince Nixon to send Dean to testify,
Dean himself telephoned the president. Dean asked to urgently meet the
following morning and carefully explained to Nixon that there were important
details of which the president was unaware and that he would tell him
about these things -- but did not yet tell him:
DEAN: I think that one thing that we have to continue to do, and particularly right now, is to examine the broadest, broadest implications of this whole thing, and, you know, maybe about thirty minutes of just my recitations to you of facts so that you operate from the same facts that everybody else has. NIXON: Right. DEAN: I don't think -- we have never really done that. It has been sort of bits and pieces. Just paint the whole picture for you, the soft spots, the potential problem areas [emphasis added]
In other words, Dean was admitting, nine months into the scandal, that
he knew quite a bit about Watergate that he had never revealed to the president.
Now Dean planned to clue him in.
Nixon then inquired about the progress on a public statement Dean was
to be preparing -- and was made to understand that the statement was going
to try to avoid specifics, i.e., employ a common practice, stonewalling:
NIXON: And so you are coming up, then with the idea of just a stonewall then? Is that -- DEAN: That's right. NIXON: Is that what you come down with? DEAN: Stonewall, with lots of noises that we are always willing to cooperate, but no one is asking us for anything.
Nixon went on to pressure Dean to issue a statement to the cabinet explaining,
in very general terms, the White House's willingness to cooperate in any
investigations. Without going into detail, Nixon wanted to publicly defend the
innocence of White House officials whom he believed were innocent:
NIXON: I just want a general -- DEAN: An all-around statement. NIXON: That's right. Try just something general. Like "I have checked into this matter; I can categorically, based on my investigation, the following: Haldeman is not involved in this, that and the other thing. Mr. Colson did not do this; Mr. So- and- so did not do this. Mr. Blank did not do this." Right down the line, taking the most glaring things. If there are any further questions, please let me know. See? DEAN: Uh huh, I think we can do that.
But Dean apparently didn't intend to "do that." He was seemingly waiting
for the right moment to create the right effect -- and that moment would not
come until he had jumped the wall to the other side and become the key witness
for the prosecution.
In Haldemans diary entry of the same day, he observes that Nixon wants
to come clean, but that Dean is warning him not to:
[The president] feels strongly that we've got to say something to get ourselves away from looking like we're completely on the defensive and on a cover-up basis. If we . . . are going to volunteer to send written statements . . . we might as well do the statements now and get them publicized and get our answers out. The problem is that Dean feels this runs too many leads out. [emphasis added]
Thus, according to this account, Nixon was interested in facing his problems.
This included, it appears, telling what they knew -- Nixon's version, in
any case.
And John Dean was urging Nixon not to do that. To make that case, Dean
was feeding Nixon's paranoia. In other words, Dean seemed to be saying:
Too many leads out. Let me control this process.
In response to a combination of events -- Weicker's call for more disclosure,
Bush's intervention with Nixon aimed at forcing Dean to testify, and
Dean's own insistence that there was more to the story -- Nixon met with
Dean the next day. That conversation, together with the smoking gun episode,
would help seal Nixon's fate.
On the morning of March 21, Nixon's White House counsel stepped
into the Oval Office and proceeded to deliver a speech that would make
Dean famous for the rest of his life. He would dramatically warn the president
of a "cancer on the presidency" soon to become inoperable. This
speech, which would shortly become Dean's principal evidence against
Nixon, may have been carefully calculated based on Dean's awareness
that the conversations were being taped. (Dean would later say he suspected
he was being taped, but as we shall see, he may have known for certain.)
In fact, for this dramatic moment, Dean had begun performing dress
rehearsals some eight days earlier. This is borne out by earlier taped
conversations -- ones whose very existence has been largely suppressed in
published accounts. In these earlier tapes, we hear Dean beginning to tell
Nixon about White House knowledge related to Watergate. (Most of these
tapes are excluded from what is generally considered the authoritative compendium
of transcripts, Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes, by Stanley Kutler,
who told me in a 2008 interview that he considers himself a close friend
of John Dean.)
In one unpublicized taped conversation, from March 13, Dean told Nixon
that Haldeman's aide Gordon Strachan had foreknowledge of the break-in,
was already lying about it in interviews, and would continue to do so before
a grand jury. The Watergate prosecutors, for whom Dean was a crucial witness,
had the March 13 tape, but did not enter it into evidence.
DEAN: Well, Chapin didn't know anything about the Watergate, and -- NIXON: You don't think so? DEAN: No. Absolutely not. NIXON: Did Strachan? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: He knew? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: About the Watergate? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: Well, then, Bob knew. He probably told Bob, then. He may not have. He may not have. DEAN: He was, he was judicious in what he, in what he relayed, and, uh, but Strachan is as tough as nails. I -- NIXON: What'll he say? Just go in and say he didn't know? DEAN: He'll go in and stonewall it and say, "I don't know anything about what you are talking about." He has already done it twice, as you know, in interviews.
This is significant since Strachan, a junior staff member, was essentially
reporting to Dean -- a fact that Dean failed to point out to Nixon. Although
Strachan was Haldeman's aide, when it came to matters like these, he
would, at Dean's request, deal directly with Dean.
"As to the subject of political intelligence-gathering," Strachan told the Senate Watergate
Committee,
"John Dean was designated as the White House contact for the Committee
to Re-elect the President." Thus, if Strachan knew anything about Watergate,
even after the fact, it seems to have been because Dean included him in
the flow of "intelligence."
On March 17, in another tape generally excluded from accounts of Watergate,
Dean told Nixon about the Ellsberg break-in. He also provided a long list of
people who he felt might have "vulnerabilities" concerning Watergate,
and included himself in that list.
NIXON: Now, you were saying too, ah, what really, ah, where the, this thing leads, I mean in terms of the vulnerabilities and so forth. It's your view the vulnerables are basically Mitchell, Colson, Haldeman, indirectly, possibly directly, and of course, the second level is, as far as the White House is concerned, Chapin. DEAN: And I'd say Dean, to a degree. NIXON: You? Why? DEAN: Well, because I've been all over this thing like a blanket. NIXON: I know, I know, but you know all about it, but you didn't, you were in it after the deed was done. DEAN: That's correct, that I have no foreknowledge . . . NIXON: Here's the whole point, here's the whole point. My point is that your problem is you, you have no problem. All the others that have participated in the God-damned thing, and therefore are potentially subject to criminal liability. You're not. That's the difference.
In the heavily publicized "cancer" speech of March 21, Dean essentially
reiterated what he had told Nixon previously, if in more detail. But he added
an important element -- one which would cause Nixon serious problems
when the "cancer" tape was played for the public: a request for one million
dollars in "hush money" for the burglars. Informed by Dean of a "continual
blackmail operation by Hunt and Liddy and the Cubans," Nixon asked how
much money they needed. Dean responded, "These people are going to cost
a million dollars over the next two years." There is debate as to whether
Nixon actually agreed with Dean's suggestion to pay money or merely ruminated
over it. He never did pay the money.
Dean's behavior did not appear to be that of a lawyer seeking to protect
his client, let alone advice appropriate to the conduct of the presidency.
If there is a smoking gun that proves that Trump is beholden to Russia, I want to know about
it. Having slogged through this book, though, I can tell you that the smoking gun is not here.
That is disappointing, because the cover of the book implies that proof of collusion will be
provided. Instead, the book provides a series of "it seemed as if something more was going on"
types of speculations. It also restates everything you already know about the alleged
scandal.
Some readers will be happy with this book -- primarily those who are already certain that
Trump is controlled by Russia, despite the lack of evidence to that effect. If you are a
liberal looking for confirmation bias, this book will make you nod knowingly.
Other readers should note that this book accepts the controversial "Russian dossier" about
Trump on face value, even though the dossier has been debunked by Newsweek, Bob Woodward, and
others, while the New York Times (embarrassed by initially treating the dossier as legitimate)
has called it "unsubstantiated." This book's perspective on the dossier is to the left of even
the New York Times. At one point, the book references the publication Mother Jones as a
mainstream news source -- that says everything you need to know about the author's political
slant.
This book is very deceptive! beware of confirmation bias!
I just got through reading this and I have to say if you are looking for a book with
nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with
VERIFIABLE lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons, then this will be a delight
to read! This book will do nothing but reinforce your confirmation bias!
"... The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning. ..."
The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel recently played an interview of the above
mentioned plagiarist Luke Harding https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624819
It is interesting to compare the free ride he is given by the interviewer, Kim Hill,
noticeably anti-Russian, and the far more intelligent approach from Aaron Mate of the Real
News.
The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a
state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning.
"... Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace. ..."
"... Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6. ..."
"... I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies. ..."
"... Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :)) ..."
"... A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation. ..."
How can this guy write a whole book about the "collusion" and not give a single clear
proof in the interview. He is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters. Good Job
Aaron!
Aaron is boss in this interview... damn I've watched 5 mins so far and this "author" has
shown himself already to be a complete tool. The only opportunist I see here is him cashing
in on this anti Russian craze that only serve the interests of Intel agencies and the
Democratic party insiders.
Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That
is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt
on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault
of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a
book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar
situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is
irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it
the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this
writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you.
Peace.
Aaron Maté, you are gold. This so-called journalist was condescending and highly
unprofessional throughout the interview to point where he most likely cut the line because he
couldn't handle being interviewed by a real journalist and seeker of truth. His failure to
directly answer Aaron's questions regarding evidence of collusion show his inability to be
factual and impartial. The 'evidence' the author presents seems circumstantial at best and
unconvincing. Thank you, the Real News Network. Your high standard of journalism is always
appreciated by your loyal viewers.
I love you, Aaron. You and the Real New are one of the few who actually challenges this
ridiculous narrative. Trump is a horrible man but so is the rest of the US plutocracy. Making
him out as some sort of special sort of evil is pathetic. He wasn't hired because of the
Russians. He was hired because Americans cannot seem to understand that the changes they want
from the economic system here in this country will not happen if they exclusively use voting
as their change mechanism. Especially if they keep voting in the two fake opposition parties
for all positions. Also, Mr. Harding, we don't need to read your book. We've been hearing
this garbage through the mainstream media for over the last year. You are not providing
anything new or any actual proof.
Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "I was a Moscow correspondent for four
years!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "Trump is nice to Putin and rude to
other world leaders!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "What do you think
Russian spy agencies do all day if not spy? Huh?"
I despise Trump, but where the fuck is Harding's evidence for collusion? He responds to
direct questions with, "weeell..." and goes onto talking about obscure meetings with musical
producers or vague connections with Russian business men. Or, worse still, reminding us how
awful Putin is (what does that prove in regards to collusion?). And how dare he claim that
he's living in the "empirical world," when he can't substantiate his headline - collision.
Stunningly, he even suggests later on that skeptical people can't appreciate Putin! Cash-in,
little more. Good job, Aaron.
Luke is full of shit as he pushes hacking of the 2016 election. William Edward Binney[3]
is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security
Agency (NSA)[4] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30
years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George
W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the
Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment
that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeJeWfoSpQ
Aarons calm, but critical, questioning/demand for evidence is very refreshing. It has to
be very uncomfortable for a guest that is acustomed to mainstream neo-libs/con
journalists.
So this guy's whole body of evidence can be summarized as because Russia engages in
espionage then that proves the collusion? Great interview Aaron, he wasn't expecting you
to call out his bullshit, thought he didn't seemed at all phased by it. 10:30"I'm a story
teller." I think that sums this guy up pretty nicely.
Funny he lost his cool so fast and went into teacher mode, LOL! Good job interviewer this
is how "stories" get vetted no matter how favorable they are to you position. :o)
Watching this interview was like a breath of fresh air. You NEVER see a "journalist"
challenge their guests on network TV (probably because guests are pre-screened to fit the
prevailing orthodoxy). If we just had an army of Aarons doing the news, I think the world
would be in a lot better shape.
Good job, Aaron, thank you. It's not the first time I've been impressed by your objective
questioning and reasoning that may offend a guest but leads to the truth. Good, unbiased
journalism seems very rare these days
Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to
throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his
connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated,
Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6.
And I wouldn't be
surprised if he had done work for them, which means he effectively still works for them (you
never leave the intelligence club, you keep getting fat wads of cash on occasion while
understanding that very bad things will happen if you turn on them). Again and again, he
presented arguments which were whole cloth bullshit, either 'facts' that were proven untrue
(like the bare-faced lie about Russian interference in the French elections) with laughable
ease by Aaron, or threw a word salad of tales of nefarious Russia being nefarious to somehow
'prove' something completely unrelated, that Russia got Trump elected with a bunch of random,
laughably tiny, obtuse efforts (a couple of ads on FB, some supposed Twitter trolls, RT,
Pokeman f-ing Go (!) ) which are all that has been openly claimed.
And there is NO REAL
EVIDENCE for that crap either, just the word of the always trustworthy spooks (a hand
selected group from 3 agencies, btw) and some heavily leaned on establishment toadies in
Silicon Valley. This book (I am guessing here- no, I have not nor will I waste my time
reading it) appears to be a disgusting cash grab on the level of 'What Happened?', selling
self-serving vacuous BS to credulous morons looking to feel better about the epic failure of
their disgusting, characterless idol. Also will undoubtedly be a big hit with the McCain wing
of right wing nuts, who have been itching for the fun of a REAL WAR (oh boy oh boy oh boy!
mass tank clashes in Poland! carrier battle groups attacking Vladivostok!!!) with the always
evil Reds... errr, Russians.
Disinformation trolls like this guy are willing to put in their
two cents toward making that happen. How the fuck they look themselves in the mirror,
especially if the have young people they care about, baffles me. But considering the Oxford
background and government connections, his kids sure as hell won't be digging a trench
frantically in ESTONIA (which I also have heard of, btw, you pompous, pompous puke). THANK
YOU REAL NEWS! MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!! :)
this is another nothing burger by a member of the UK MSM this time who should know better
- Citing Chris Steele as a source for info is a complete joke - this guy needs to go back to
Journo school .
What a great debate by Aaron. Slapped that jackass so many times & revealed how
deceptive & outright false his position is. He has no evidence & is so
condescending/arrogant despite the baselessness of his position.
I find blinking isn't usually a good sign - I do think Trump has had Russian money, some
of it laundered, through his properties for decades and Russians probably have enough to
place pressure on him in the same way Hillary could be compromised by Uranium One, he might
have considerable debts owing. However Trump like Tillerson/Exxon and many others just want
to get into Russia and start doing deals.
They are over this Brezinzski like need to crush
Russia for all time that the deep state has got lined up.
I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for
it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so
now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while
minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a
containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying
attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty
propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with
past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in
this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies.
A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on
abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real
investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview
about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation.
Luke is part of the UK metropolitan liberal elite. Still in shock that HRC was rejected by
the US voters . Still in shock that UK deplorables voted for Brexit . His monumental
arrogance is such that he believes we were too stupid to understand the issues and therefore
were 'guided' by Russian propaganda. Aaron exposes Lukes lack of evidence
perfectly.
Kudos to Aaron Mate and the Real News for asking Harding serious questions; the upshot is
that this Harding character did not have shit to prove that Russia meddled with the US
election. Good job Aaron Mate and the Real News.
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to
Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order
to please his masters.
I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" Tisdall and
Harding being prime examples thereof primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at
university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding
is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were
recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain
why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump. ..."
"... I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! ..."
"... DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails ..."
"... This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven ..."
"... I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending? ..."
Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between
Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking
secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and
occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by
every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all
three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives
us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning
every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald
Trump.
I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with
insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's
first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! [p219]. As someone who has spent
the past thirty-five years as a war correspondent and investigative journalist, I find it a
bit disappointing to think that this is the best the Left has to offer. A more shoddy piece
of work I have rarely seen.
DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING
with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The
knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to
secure their systems and not click on phishing emails.
This seems like yet another attempt to
divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have
some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is
laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been
disproven.
I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath
court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against
Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending?
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"! ..."
The Problem With Espionage The purpose of espionage is to keep your opponent at a
disadvantage by cultivating an alternate reality in their mind that is different from the
facts. Whatever the government or agency they work for an agent wants to distort your
impressions of them and their own personal capabilities. All agents want you to believe that
they don't have the capabilities, contacts, or powers that they actually do posses. By the
same token secret agents want you to believe that they DO have capabilities, contacts, or
powers that they, in fact, do NOT have. When deception is such an integral part of the game
you are playing it makes sense to assume that you know less than you think you do. That's
what actual journalism is about -- particularly when dealing with spies and espionage. In
this video Aaron Mate' is acting like a real journalist. Luke Harding is not. "Real News" is
getting the story right. Thank you! We need more real journalism.
Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the
middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and
call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"!
Imho, this guy's full of shit. Not quite ready for a 'Reynolds Wrap' hat, but seeing smoke
where there's mist. Takes me back to when there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. To TRN's
credit, they did give him a hearing. Which is more than the MSM gives to say, Chomsky or
Hedges.
He speaks Russian and has lived in Russia -- so I guess that settles it. LOL Maybe
somebody ought to ask Sarah Palin about it, since you can actually see Russia from parts of
Alaska. And the French intelligence report is inconclusive but if you get more context from
reading his book, you will see that it may be inconclusive but is actually conclusive. (It's
complicated.) And of course, he's lived in Berlin and he knows people there, so that proves
the German elections were hacked too. And only the most hidebound skeptic could fail to see
the smiley face connection. If you read his book you'll find out all this great context and
facts that prove the Russians did it. It's too bad he couldn't provide any of that for us in
this interview. (This whole thing has a sort of dog-ate-my-homework feel to it.)
The main question NOBODY'S been able to answer me is that "What policies has Trump
enacted, political, economic, military or otherwise, that benefits the interests of the
Russian state?" As far as I can tell, Trump is either indifferent to the interests of the
state of Russia, or is hostile, directly or indirectly, to them.
I tried really hard to follow this story as credible without prejudice and it was just a
bunch of babble without any evidence whatsoever.. this is just a re-print and re-title of the
Steel dossier updated with MSNBC and CNN reportage
This entire collusion scheme is occurring because the Democrats can't admit that Hillary
ran a horrible campaign and she's a murderer and a war criminal. I'm glad Mate is putting a
fire under Harding's arse and trying to make him accountable for these specious speculations.
I'm not a fan of either Putin or Trump, but this whole "scandal" has been little more than a
massive distraction. I've speculated that the entire election was a CIA psychological
operation to influence foreign policy to appease certain elements of the Deep
State.
I dislike Trump as much as the next man but when the Guardian publishes this BS it will
only bolster Trump when the lies dissolve over time and the facts eventually come out. Sadly
you might have never heard of Dr Udo Ulfkotte and his exposure that the CIA has an army of
journalists on its payroll, especially in Europe. So why are you not questioning the
integrity of this individual in more detail. These are the type of CIA and MI6 stooges that
Tony Blair used to promote the illegal war against Iraq. When this CIA stooge says,
08:25 "I
think that Russia played a role in last year's election is a matter of fact. This is only
what US intelligence agencies believe" he must be assuming the majority of the US population
are just ignorant fools. The US Intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had WMDs and the
British Intelligence believed Saddam was sourcing nuclear material from Africa. This
deceitful idiot Harding still pushes the idea the MI6 published Trump-Putin Dossier when it
has been shown it was paid for by the DNC. So would you believe any intelligence agency whose
motive is a push for war? And the best way to achieve this goal and have the misinformed
population back the corrupted corporate government would be to promote this BS from this
sleazy CIA puppet. If you get a chance, have a look at some other YouTube videos of the BS
this CIA journalist produces: "The KGB left a sex manual after breaking into my home" or
"Putin is Building an Empire" or the ever popular "Putin May Secretly Be One Of The World's
Richest Men". Then may I suggest you look at any story on Russia by the truth-tellers, the
whistleblowers that have actually been prosecuted for telling the truth in this fascist
system: William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, or Ray McGovern. So there will always be
some imbeciles that believe this fabrication just as there were some that believed the New
York Times and the Washington Post about the Bush-Blair Iraq War rhetoric when the oligarchs'
real intentions were so clearly stated by General Wesley Clark in his admission of "7
countries in 5 years". I am interested to know if TRN approached Harding or Harding was
offered up to TRN as a CIA stooge to spew their propaganda. It is sad to see the Guardian
employ such a hack; sure they are now a mouthpiece for the Empire but they have done some
good work over the years. It is clear that Harding writes to influence the apathetic and the
stupid; he conflates innuendo and supposition with fact in his attempt to distort perception
and for the imbecile with no intellectual honesty; this is very effective. I find it
frustrating that TRN attempts to expose this garbage when the oligarchs' MSM would lap it up.
You would never hear the BBC or Maddow questioning this MI6-CIA stooge like Aaron Maté
did. Aaron has done a competent job; not an effective job like one would expect from Paul Jay
at questioning this farce but sadly, this is the best TRN has to offer. There will always be
a number of scared and pathetic individuals within the population that will always be
incapable of differentiating between fact and fantasy or between truth and lies. These are
the Useful Idiots of Empire and they have been used to justify and instigate Imperial
aggression since the beginning of time.
Maté wiped the floor with Harding. It's also interesting that Harding appeared to
confuse Russian espionage with what is essentially Mossad-driven sexpionage when he mentioned
the "swallows." He seems woefully ill-informed when it comes to dual nationality,
Russian-Jewish mafia ties with Israel and Anglo-American foreign policy. This is also why
Trump has been encircled with Russian corporate interests to a certain degree - they are
connected to Russian-Israeli underworld objectives. Hence, the real conspiracy here is via
Israeli intelligence working through its traditional syanim in both Russia and the United
States.
This lunatic Harding is trying to sell USA and CIA as pillars of truth, democracy and
integrity, playing positive role in international affairs. How stupid and sold can a writer
get?!
I love how this guy keeps harping the point that Mate should have read his entire book.
This is so sad to watch, our media should be as critical as this, and this shows how far they
are from that.
Interviewer: "Your book is called Collusion. What evidence do you present for an act of
collusion?" Author: "Well, you see, Russians are bad and they do bad things, and you have to
see a pattern of bad things, and Trump is bad, so <waves hands> you know, context."
Interviewer: "I didn't hear any actual evidence there" Author: "Did you read my book? Because
I say stuff in there that suggests that my title is true. Also, go to Russia and ask
Russians, because you can trust them about what they have to say about the US election. Don't
listen to me, listen to them." At this point I'm wondering if the author read his own
book...
That guy had become unhinged by the end of the interview. This is the same behavior I've
seen from Russia-gaters when every talking point they bring up gets immediately debunked. I'm
surprised he didn't start ranting xenophobic nonsense about how the interviewer was also a
Russian agent. I've seen this conversation play out this way so many times over the past year
that the fact we're still talking about this is asinine.
This is Journalism. You need to answer the questions with hard evidence, facts, links and
ties. Names, Dates, Times these have to add up. Donate to The Real News!!
Seems Luke wasn't expecting a grilling from an outlet like the real news. He's probably
not used to a left-leaning American news outlet that tolerates dissenting opinions on the
Russia narrative. A sad reflection on what the atmosphere must be like at the Guardian.
Thanks again Aaron.
This is a great exchange between a believer of Russiagate and a sceptic. Both guys did a
great job pushing their arguments. Shame you don't see this on the msm. They're too busy
pushing their editorial lines instead of being challenged.
What is easier? Russia pulling off collusion OR Russia convincing idiots that they pulled
off collusion. I think that both have the same effect on delegitimizing our electoral
process, one is just a lot easier.
ALSO if the kgb is so good and so well trained at this then why is it so obvious? The
perfect crime is one that your enemy thinks you committed yet has no proof of, because
spoiler, you didn't commit it.
Thank you Aaron for being a JOURNALIST unlike the guy trying to well a book, why not every
body ids entitle to profit from a nation which from here seem to be populated by MORONS! The
Guardian lost its way back in 2001 by toeing the official White House Line, it asked very
little questions, it was very thick on speculation (a bit like this moron)!
This "author" or hack journalist is absolutely ignorant. Clearly he hates Russia and Puti.
And is just fine to create lies and stories. This was a great interview by Aaron! Excellent
job asking valid, intelligent questions and holding his feet (and fables) to the fire. People
creating and spreading this type of propaganda should all be held to the standards Aaron just
held this doofus to! When asked real questions, for proof of their statements of fact and
confronted with opposing information, you just get stuttering and the same old line of Putin
is bad so therefore my lies must be true! No proof yet people r still writing books and
profiting from spreading a very dangerous type of propaganda!
This is hilarious. Everytime TRN interviews anyone about the Russian case, they - the
interviewee - ends up being flustered, frustrated. I am waiting for that obscenities laden
outburst one of these interviews
Very good Aaron! Finally someone's called out the fabulilt Harding, arguably the worst
Anglophone reporter from Russia, and there's stiff competition.
I'm getting fed up with this shit. Trump just sent lethal weapons to Ukraine. This guy and
his administration have done nothing but escalate tensions with Russia since he took office.
Sanctions, banning RT, Syria strike, buzzing Russian jets, the latest Ukraine BS, that Obama
refused to do because it would escalate tensions. I wish this guy was Putin's puppet, but he
is more likely to give us a nuclear exchange with Russia.
It was the USSR until 1991, then the US Oligarchs pillages the New formed Russia.I don't
even think that Psychics would have fathomed Trump ever running for President 35+ years
later... Idiot....
Trump is crocked in my opinion, but who cares about my opinion--NO ONE. So why don't we
just wait for the evidence to come forward after the investigation. If he is guilty of
something then we will know. Clearly Mueller and his team is NOT going to put evidence out in
the public if indeed they do have something at this time. So everyone is just speculating,
BUT that does not mean the investigation should be over because SOME people feel there is
nothing there. That just does not make sense to me. Let the investigation conclude just like
they wanted it to conclude when Bill Clinton. By the way, he should read the book (not skim
it) and then get quotes to ask. The author is right to call out the interviewer for not
reading his book, but wants to talk about---the BOOK! Really?
Just what is the proof that Trump is Putin's puppet? Is it the NATO troops moving ever
eastward in Europe, holding war games on Russia's borders? Is it the extra billions earmarked
for nuclear war preparations? Or perhaps the US troops and bases illegally placed in Russia's
ally Syria? One has to be an idiot to believe this Russiagate nonsense.
Luke Harding is so full of shite, I'm surprised it's not oozing out of his pores. He says
nothing new in this interview he just rehashes the narrative. Intentionality? Luke is
obviously not used to being questioned on his storytelling.
This fella seems to be more interested in advertising his book than answering the
questions. These Guardian article writers may as well write for Daily Express or The Sun or
any other gutter press
I wonder if Luke Harding thought that doing this interview would sell a few copies of his
book. If so, he will be disappointed - he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable, to say the
least.
this guy is pissed of with Putin, and thinks he knows everything just because he is a rich
boy from Oxbridge elite, yet this wanker has not a single fact supported with solid evidence.
That sums up the state of liberal fascists. Oh God!
Harding never voiced any proof or real evidence of collusion. Speculation, speculation,
speculation and inference. I'm so tired of this. And yes, Putin's not a nice guy.
The guy said go to Russia, meet Navalny (a man with less than 1% support)..lol. go to any
country on earth and meet the opposition and see if they will have anything positive to say
about the running government.. they are opposition for a reason... smh
I heard a really, disappointing softball interview on KCRW (NPR affiliate in LA) with this
same author where he was presenting correlations as causation and making the same broad
generalizations with nary a challenge from Warren Olney (who could be an excellent
interviewer) , but rather exclamations of approval. Aaron Mate on the other hand does a
fabulous job of showing the Emperor has no clothes. So, big big kudos to him for leaving this
fraud in a stumbling, stuttering pout of ineffective arguments. This author is at best making
a buck jumping on the Russian hysteria bandwagon, and at worst is part of a concerted
propaganda effort by those who would benefit from a new Cold War. One can oppose Trump for
not only his vulgarity but more importantly he does, policy-wise. Unfortunately, many of
those policies are the same or just a bit more radical than many of the politicians whose
style is less overly vulgar and divisive.
At the end Harding implies that definitive proof of collusion would be Trump and Putin in
a sauna. That would actually only be proof both men like a good steam.
Luke: There are only two honorable ways to respond to the charge of lack of proof for your
bold claims. 1. Point to proof 2. Admit there is no proof. Only a pathetic weasel with zero
intellectual integrity would take another course. After this interview I don't even believe
you know any Russian beyond "can I have the check please" Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a
deranged mad woman. Who else would laugh like a hyena about being accessory to Qaddafi's
gruesome murder?
Mate' is nobody's fool. This is what an interview should be, not a beaming love-fest
between "journalist" and guest. It's wonderful to see a strong journalist who's informed and
not rubber-stamping BS to crawl up the ass of someone with connections. You go, Aaron!!! Much
respect to RT.
Aaron. Probably the best journalistic interview that I have ever seen. Anyone watching
this will realise this collusion stuff is nonsense. And yes, i despise Trump and Putin's
corruption.
"The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or
hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled
Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken
apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there
is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his
assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its
fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian
Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as
plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct
Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/27/from-snowden-russia-gate-cia-and-media.html
Thank you, Aaron, for convincingly exposing a shill for the Imperialist agenda and
committed cheerleader for the "deep state." Harding could do nothing more, in the face of
demands for evidence, than splutter endlessly on irrelevancies and assertions that the
Russians don't like us (gee, I wonder why not?!?!?). Excellent job Aaron: you are a credit to
true journalism.
This is the best video on the Russiagate conspiracy theory I have seen all year. I wish
people would remember that there is equal evidence that the US kills journalists; when you
hear people say that about other countries they're clearly propagandists.
That was awkward viewing.....but you can see why people like me in England went from
buying the guardian everyday to being dismayed to see the publication have such a skewed
agenda on politics that I now avoid clicking on their online articles. Basically the media
here is "London thinks this, so you should too"
Your sign off with a plug for the propagandist book, despite his abrupt fleeing of your
interview, was very civilised. Great job, I enjoyed the squirm and deflecting done by Luke. I
think he was well grilled by the time he left.
It should be acrime for so called Journalists to be allowed to propagate this abaloute
disgraceful nonsense. The guy is talking about 1987 - a single time Trump visited Russia
during the 80's. Next time he wsa there was about 5 years ago for miss universe contest. Yet
this is evidence or him being a Russian puppet. Total nonsense! No, this is communists
realizing Trump is a sledgehammer to their narrative. They are looking at political
wilderness across the west if Trump can do what he wants to do so in desperation they attempt
to drag out anything they can to keep their bs narrative going even going back almost 30
years...
Just to be clear: Russia hacked both DNC and Macron emails, and released them, mixed with
false information, in a disinformation campaign. The DNC emails became source of conspiracy
on facebook. Macron emails were never allowed to be published in any form.
When subjected to some skepticism, Harding's assertions collapse into vague "because the
intel agencies told us" nonsense. Hats off to Aaron for knocking down the Russia hysteria
once again.
Pretty embarrassing interview with this British guy... When he gives that snarky "oh too
bad you didnt read the book.." line i really wanted to hear the interveiwer say "Oh its
really too bad you didnt think to memorize one fact about the subject your being interveiwed
about..."
Now he leans on whether Aaron has read the whole book or not. I know I won't read it, as
the man as not said a convincing word in the entire interview.
Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. Let's be frank. It presupposes it's conclusion and
finds circumstantial and hearsay evidence to support it. "Collusion-rejectionist" Mate points
this out time and time again (not only to this guy) and this guy says 'go talk to people; the
russians do things this way; everybody knows; you are a fringe character for not agreeing' -
it just doesn't hold water. No doubt Trump has shady deals with Russians among others. The
idea that such a buffoon been cultivated since the mid-80s by the KGB as a Manchurian
Candidate wouldn't make for a plausible pop spy thriller plot - maybe a good satire of one,
however.
Omg this was fun. Btw, we can all agree that Pyutin made Luke to wrote that idiotic book
just to toss a doubt how he did not collude with Tryump, because there's no limit of his
cunningness.
Luke's stories, just like the whole collusion theme, is a nothing burger left out of the
fridge too long. So now it stinks and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it
belongs.
He probably published the book half cooked just for the best timing of the sale. Maybe
they need a better guests? This doesn't prove anything that Trump is clear of the
allegation.. Far from it. Probe will continue.
Crappiest interview ever. You don't read the book and then you spout your pre-conceived
notions of the its subject matter. Cherry on top, with a pro-Trump bias.
He obviously didn't bother to read the book , why bother to interview the guy ? They are
talking past each other , if he had read the book they could have had a descent debate . This
is as bad a Fox News segment . Terrible .
This clown only response is to stammer and stutter until the regurgitated corporate
propaganda eventually spews out of his mouth with very very little confidence lol
This conspiracist has not listened to Putin speak. If he had, he would not be painting
such a one-dimensional, comic book character of him. Can we please move on from such naively
simplistic analyses of global power structures? Any leader unable to manage Intelligence is
at the mercy of a Deep State -- as we have learned time and again in the US. Before
cheerleading for World War, start by watching some of the hours and hours of footage showing
Putin engaging deeply with citizens and world leaders. Try critiquing that. Maybe learn some
history.
In watching the video interview it is obvious this 'Journalist' has his own Personal
Agenda regarding Putin and wants to get Putin any which way he can even if it means lying to
the America People. He is no true journalist. Great Interviewer!
The more I hear "experts" push this stupid Russia-phobic conspiracy theory the less I
believe it...This is why I like the Real news and you're worth supporting. You haven't fallen
for the mainstream narrative... There are many legitimise things to criticise Trump on. The
Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is NOT one of them.
Opposition Research on oligarch Hillary and Don Jr goes to find out what they've got.
That's it? We already know that the DNC emails were an inside job and subsequent DNC coverup
to blame Russia. We KNOW that (see VIPs report on consortium.) Stop blaming Russia! Luke
Harding is a delusional red-baiting Russophobe. Were I the Guardian, I would sack him! He's
an embarrassment! Don't buy his book!
Hillary's rush to threaten military action toward Russia over leaked/hacked DNC e-mails,
which simply exposed some of their corruption during the Democratic primary process, likely
did more to further harm her chances in the general election than any memes or any efforts by
anybody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw
aaron mate! thank you for putting this Guardian hack into account! brilliant stuff! once
more the Real News is exceeding my expectations, this was superb journalism and holding the
media gatekeepers an extension of the establishment into account.
Luke kinda had his mind made up prior to setting up this interview. Russian collusion?
IDK, but let's just see what turns up. Mueller's already indicted some people. The issue with
the Russia investigation is the excitement over it on both sides. Everyone needs to just lay
back and let it happen regardless of how you feel. Close your eyes and think of England, and
maybe something comes out of it. I would rather we were investigating how we got into Iraq
and the abuses that happened after we invaded, but no one should be opposed to an
investigation where people have already been indicted. Media pushing the war with Russia
narrative are being silly, but the same with media saying we shouldn't investigate anything
about this. ON the left we also shouldn't expect too much to come from this. Great if we can
use this investigation to get Trump out of office for something; if not, useful political
theater if the Dems would just recognize the importance of that.
How fair to give him a platform. Will you invite Alex Jones next? How about some flat
earthers? ahh right, it's only ok when it's mainstream conspiracy theory, sorry, totally
forgot
Aaron challenges Russia assertion : Guy goes onto tell some story how he lived there and
he just knows "Believe him" Because he lived in Russia for 4 years... ??????????? Goes to
assert further... Aaron responds.. "proof" Response to that "Well the history from the
1970's.... " PROOOOOF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Look. I am fine with the fact that Russia might have
interfered with the election. JUST GIVE ME SOME FUCKING PROOF. Until then? Fuck off... There
are real problems to deal with.
LOL I loved Mate's performance in this interview. He totally flipped the script on this
crackpot realist. He felt like a dissenting person feels on MSM, if they ever bother to have
one on.
Telling how this "person" being interviewed spouts of a word like empirical when it comes
to an accusation with no supporting evidence so to him if you are accused of something that
in itself is empirical evidence?=horse shit propagandist no offense to horses. He first won't
accept there is no proof but when asked what the proof is he starts talking about his
personal feelings as if they are proof(superiority complex).
So? The "real" news is now doing book-promos? Shame on you - this is unmitigated garbage.
(edit: after watching the whole article, I'm still not satisfied. The problem with a public
"hatchet-job" is you give oxygen to your "victim" and get seen with a hatchet in your hand.
That does not look good. And in your victim's dying breaths, he will plant a curse on you via
those who saw you with the hatchet. Sun Tzu warns us to not give your enemy no-way-out ..
your forces are no match to those fighting for their very lives. It is abundantly clear from
the actual evidence that the 2016 election was willfully lost by Hillary Clinton, not won by
Trump. This is a result of Clinton being high in the cluster-B spectrum -she gets sexual
pleasure from torture and ugly death [Qaddafi] - whereas, Trump is lower on the spectrum: not
a sociopath/psychopath, but clearly a narcissist bordering on malignant. And I pause to add
that probably ALL global leaders are on the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorder. The
thing you have to know about cluster-B in this context, is that those within the cluster-B
are outside of normal social influence, such as "honey-traps" etc, because they lack the
compassion link to empathy - i.e. they do not respond to the tools which work on healthy
humans and tend to only respond to their own "world-view" in which the entire universe is
composed of themselves. Next: I tried to influence the US election by donating to Sanders -
so who is investigating the Australian "collusion" .. gimme a break - we all wanted Sanders.
Clinton gave us the choice of a sociopath against a narcissist - and we chose the narcissist.
And there he is doing the work he was made to do - to destroy the entire world-order so we
can, at least, start over. With Clinton - we all knew - it was lights-out for all of us. At
least with trump, the game is still in play. The lesser of evils. SO stop giving gas to the
commercial-distractionists - they are remnants of the lights-out brigade who are eating,
drinking, and being merry, because tomorrow, they intend to die .. the self-condemned. And
none of them asked me, or any of the others who would like to see life continue. The whole
thing disgusts me - dust your feet and leave the show - the finale is not worth sticking
around for.)
PS: NSA is currently monitoring, downloading and repeatedly viewing some of our children
for "security reason" ... Youth who are legally earning a living in the US as porn stars on
the net in order to eat, get an education pay student loan debt and survive in a nation which
gives little F about providing the true security realized via the the provision of privacy,
organic food from local heritage seed, pure potable H2O, clean air, access to free Integrated
Medicine, free and equal education and a comfortable roof over their heads, NOT based on how
much potential they have to move money for the corporatist-elite or the ethnicity of their
forefathers. How low will, WE stoop? @TheRealNews Pathetic
Aaron Mate that was absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You picked his bullshit story apart. Another
journalist making money on Russiagate. I can't believe I called him a journalist. Bill Binney
has already solved the hacking issue....lets move on. Awesome interview. Keep up the great
work...I bow to you.
I've never heard of the interviewer needing to read the book before interviewing the
author? Isn't it the author's "job" to plug his own book and inform the viewers of its
contents? It's really obvious that Harding had nothing to counter with- it was awkward to
watch as his Russian gate conspiracy fell to shit. Great job Mate!
Ugh. Another opportunistic "journalist" trying to capitalize on Russia panic (PUTIN!).
Great interview. You gave him plenty of time and room to make his case, and he just couldn't
seem to defend his position.
The Guardian was once a respectable news outlet. It both saddens and angers me that
journalists such as Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, neither of whom seem to have any real
grasp on the subjects they cover, are touted by The Guardian as leading experts on Putin and
Russia. Almost as embarrassing as anger-making.
Sadly typical of what the Guardian has become. This reminds me why I can't read it
anymore, just too much bullshit and innuendo sold off as fact. Good work, Aaron.
Aaron: "Are you inferring that because two Russians used a smiley face that's proof that
Manafort's associate was a tool of the Russian government?" 20:23 . HaHaHa!!! I don't miss
Louis CK anymore. This is the goddamn funniest shit ever!
Donald Trump just authorized the sale of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. This ensures
that fighting will intensify on Russia's border. We can thank Russia conspiracy theorists
like Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler and Luke Harding for providing a media environment that
enabled/pushed Trump to move in this direction. Mission accomplished, propagandists! World
War 3 in 2018?
the only collusion i saw in 2016 was rothschild zionazis, saudi arabia, isis, israhell,Fox
msnbc cnn trump, and clinton against bernie sanders and the people
''Kind of, sort of....air quotes...sort of...'' If Trump colluded with anyone it was
Netanyahu and other ultra nationalist Zionists inside Washington and Tel Aviv. It certainly
is not in the interests of America to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And who
is Gerard Kushner batting for? America...or Israel?
This Harding hack is a perfect example of why The Guardian - a once proudly liberal
publication - has become another neoliberal propaganda rag. He also wrote articles cheering
ISIL in Syria, literally comparing them to the Republican Brigade who went to Spain to fight
against the Franco Fascists in Spain in the 1930s.
No, "you don't have to just take a look", this is more BULLSHIT for book sales. No way
Russia colluded in the election, no hacking either. This Russia story was thought up by
Podesta back in 2015. Peace
"I'm a writer & I once lived in Russia so I have to be right!" AND he says, "I'm a
storyteller." Well, that's the problem. Storytelling is also a synonym for lying.
That so-called journalist was so obviously bereft of facts and wore his blatant biases
proudly. That kind of crap might play well on MSM shows, but doesn't work very well with a
well-informed and neutral interviewer. Well done. "Collusion"? Maybe "My Cold War Fantasy
World" would have been a better title for his book.
Excellent interviewer, disappointing interviewee. Harding's red herrings, guilt by
association, appeals to "context," and repeated well-poisoning do not constitute
*evidence*.
It is because of these journalists is why I believe journalism is no longer a professional
of finding and presenting the truth. It's more of floating around a narrative to serve the
interests of their masters
The disturbing thing about this interview is Luke Harding not only is unable to respond to
Aaron's request for evidence but he doesn't even seem to understand that his conclusions are
based on surmise and implications gleamed from irrelevant material. I have to assume Harding
has had some education in the journalistic rules of evidence, at least enough to land a
prestigious job with the Guardian. And yet he is not only unable to submit forensic evidence
of collusion between Trump and Putin but he doesn't seem to understand what would be required
to actually identify that evidence to make his case. I have to assume the book only relies on
inference and innuendo to establish its case: Putin is a bad man who will resort to anything
to achieve his ends, hence he is guilty of resorting to any means to influence a Trump
victory. This kind of "evidence" only goes to motivation and says nothing about ability or
opportunity. (two of the three linchpins of circumstantial evidence. Of course this kind of
shoddy thinking is nearly endemic today among not only journalists and pundits, who ought to
know better, but also among the general public (most of my friends in particular). This
epidemic is so vast and persistent that I am afraid it will only be staunched by a
thermonuclear war. "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we
were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time:
the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality,
usually on a battlefield." George Orwell
This guy is Mr Word Salad, Aaron really twists his balls in the best possible way. What a
pathetic shill, you can tell this idiot works for the Guardian. "Where is the evidence of
collusion?" "Putin is bad." "Yes but where is the evidence?" "Estonia, France, my friends
died, Putin is bad." "Where's the evidence?" "Putin is bad." Idiot.
It's ironic that Mate presents himself (by virtue of the association implied with Real
News) as somehow different from the (again implied) not-so-real news and then pursues a
pretty familiar "gotcha" approach to this interview. Mate appears more interested in proving
himself correct with his skepticism rather than at all curious about the author's point of
view as it applies to his work. This is more of the Same News I think. Or at least the same
games that talking heads favour. Mate, in addition, seems very amused with himself. That's
hardly productive to anyone interested in learning something about the author or the author's
premise.
I love how Aaron is making this guy squirm with simple, logical questions. Taking the
guest's own advice, he should venture out into the reality world out of his book's bubble.
The icing on the cake is when the guest starts (around 8 minute mark) flailing his arms like
a monkey in a zoo, to the delight of children observing the animal.
No offense to my Estonian friends, but Harding using them as an example of the broader
hacking trend seems bullshitty to me. I don't think any leftists skeptical of the Russiagate
narrative would say that Russia doesn't hack, or Russia doesn't attempt to influence foreign
elections. But if you're going to say that Russia has the capacity to do it in the USA,
showing they did it in France or Germany would be a decent analog, Estonia (formerly occupied
by the USSR and in Russia's sphere of geopolitical influence) is not. Am I missing
something?
It is NOT about Donald Trump. It is about USA and the foundational principles of our
democracy. IF there is even a small chance that the formation of our government is influenced
by the forces from a hostile nation, this IS the problem. Go to hell Aaron Mate. Idiot Aaron,
go to Russia and meet and the HR activists and see what the country is truly like before you
interview, mofo idiot Aaron Mate
Even if Putin directly helped trump get elected using his own personal computer, these ppl
are gonna fuck up proving it up tripping all over themselves with adolescent anticipation and
opportunism
Sounds like the Brits are stirring the pot, bringing the Russian 'axis of evil' back into
the mix. Think.. Did we ever have US sovereignty? What really happened back in 1775? Maybe
the US is just the military arm of the UK and is still hell bent on achieving global
domination after all. And the US has been annexed by them all along. Why else is this Brit
demanding that the Russians are still a cold war enemy when Trump obviously has nothing
against them? I'm having serious questions as to the strategic alliance and geopolitical
relationship we have with Britain because of this guy's views. That being said, there may
well have been collusion by the Russians to help Trump get into office. But that alone, still
doesn't prove Russia the 'axis of evil' or anything near to being our enemy. It's about
global domination. The NWO remember? The Brits/Rothschild banking cartel have been hell bent
for it for centuries. Russia? Not so much.
Mr. Harding is definitely having a hard time finding any collusion and he wrote the book
on it!? Instead of addressing our unfair, closed and black box elections we waste time on a
guy who can't seem to form a coherent sentence!?
Although there may have been collusion, Russia did not help Trump win. Hillary's record
helped Trump win. After learning of her speech to Wall st., it made it impossible for me to
vote for her. How dare she tell them one story and tell us what she thinks we want to
hear.
great interview Aaron, i also am very skeptical of the whole "Russia did it" meme. great
job asking for proof, i didnt hear any either, color me not impressed with the interviewee or
his hypothesis,
Manafort was a recommendation of Roger Stone, friend of Trump. Manafort and Stone had
companies together since the eighties. Harding doesn't know what he is talking
about.
Wow, a real journalist. MSM would have covered this conspiracy theory as absolute truth.
No questions asked, which is why nobody trusts them. Harding has nothing but speculation and
an obvious bias. I wonder who paid him to write the book.
Ooh this Harding dude was squirming in his shoes. At the end, very sweatie, voice is
cracking. It's impressive how he's able to lie for so long but he stayed consistent with his
questioning
Given Harding's long chain of illogical arguments in this interview, I suspect his four
year stint in Russia was heavily influenced by Russian vodka, from which he has yet to
recover.
That included a lot of criticism of Russia and Putin for a supposed Russian controlled new
out let. Again, there is no direct evidence of collusion and no evidence that Russia cost
Clinton the election
The guy's got nothing. I'd love to see some real proof but this guy is equivocating at
every turn. Re: the "France hacks" he says it was "inconclusive" but due to a laundry list of
unrelated other examples of Russians possibly doing some nefarious stuff he's willing to
accept it as a fact. That is not what I would call "empirical." "Muckraking" would be a
better term...
this poor conspiracy author was depthcharged by this artfull and rather demeaning
interviewer. it demonstrates the need to be able to back claims unless they are presented as
theories. I have not read this book but apparently claims were made as"common knowledge" that
could not be supported by "empiracle data". this also points out why no massive claims have
been announced by Mueller's team. all conclusions must be backed by solid data. I believe one
would be naive to conclude anything from this interview except that claims made in this book
are not supported by accepteddata -- yet.
Much like the circular arguments put forth by the pro Hillary anti Stein people. No matter
how much you request the EVIDENCE they keep repeating suspicion, someone said, everyone
knows....and CANNOT produce any evidence....and do not understand how that type of response
is acutely reminiscent of Joe McCarthy waving of the paper with those names...one never gots
to see.
On the allegation of Russian meddling in the French election, if I remember correctly, it
was not Putin who cut a campaign video ad for one of the candidates, I remember correctly, it
was Obama who cut a campaign ad for the French Candidate who won.
The reason mainstream media focuses on Russia is because of ratings but it is a huge
nothing burger. No proof no real connections and all the "smoking guns" turned out to be
cigarette lighters and the lamestream never retracts it or anything just goes on like all is
well. Good to see some journalistic integrity. The author was making a leap from "He's a
repressive dictator ao he must be guilty" with no evidence at all.
Excellent interview Aaron. Crushed it. Your guest has 28 minutes to make at least one
salient point and he is unable to do that. Wow! However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for the next Russiagate shill to consent to an interview with you though Aaron. Just saying!
:) :) PS - Oh, darn, I forgot and gave you the secret code of two Emoji smilies!
Drats!
Luke Harding talks like he presumes all the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck 10
minutes ago. Uh... yeah dude... we DO know the history of the KGB and FSB, and yeah dude, we
know about "honey pots" and that KGB and _______________________ (fill in Intel agency
of your choice____) did them too... for... oh... lets see... a few centuries anyway. So what
are you trying to sell? You constantly keep using past circumstance as "proof" when it is no
such thing. You would get thrown out of a court for that... and ANYONE capable of critical
thinking knows, all you are selling is "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Hey... I don't dispute that you
will surely sell copies of your book to low information Kool Aid drinkers (You going to cite
THAT as proof that your book is "true" now as well?)
Is there any empirical evidence of Trump/Putin collusion in this fairy tale? Lol Why does
Luke insist we read this without providing real, objective evidence? He expects us to just
take his and his "sources'" word for it?
Re-watching this interview, I'm absolutely astounded by the vacuity and ridiculous
attempts on the part of Harding to misdirect the conversation at the same time that he tries
to prop up his own credibility. This is literally a primer in the 'art' of
Imperialist/careerist 'journalism.'
Why H.R.C. 'lost'? "And it's deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who
supposedly "won" the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State's office proudly told me
that they were "very aggressive" in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach,
who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as
potential double voters."
http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/
"it's opportunistic it's very often 04:45 pretty low-budget the kind
of hacking 04:47 operation to hack the
Democratic Party 04:49 was done by two separate
groups of kind 04:52 of Kremlin hackers
probably not owning 04:54 kind of huge sums of money
and and so 04:58 some of it is kind of
improvisational 05:00 the most important thing
is that you you 05:02 have people with access
which in this . . . " Wikileaks hacked the Democratic Party?
Oregon's Democrats vote for and support attacks on our civil liberties, love the emergence
of censorship in social media and the press, vote for the criminalization of protest, vote
for the militarization of police and the unconstitutional massive expansion of the
surveillance state. Democrats Hate All Life on Mother Earth. Love torture. Love Killing
millions of brown folk overseas. Democrats are steamy piles of Horse Manure. Republicans
& Democrats are criminal organizations and are EVIL and war for profit groups; they do
the bidding of foreign dictators before they listen to the American People.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Hi NRDC; I have made many monetary contributions to your organization. You are evoking the
fear of Trump in this year end fund drive. Fighting against Trump is a democratic stance.
Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders and gave us Trump; both parties are corrupt and enemies of
all life on earth. Your organization is used for politics chiefly. I will find organizations
to donate to that are for the people, not war and corruption and not run by selected leaders
picked for their political powers and hate of common man and that actually love Mother earth.
Politics is 100% lies and that makes you guys liars and cheats just like the democrats.
Oregon Green Energy
Harding, show us the evidence. If you had any real, objective evidence, you would all want
to share it. You have shared NOTHING. None of you Russia-gaters share anything other than
circumstantial. Nobody who is "skeptical," or who uses logic and critical thinking skills has
ever said Russia and Putin weren't shady and oppressive, but that is not the
argument.
Why on Earth isn't Mueller investigating radical democrats for embezzling taxpayer money
for the Climate Change hoax? Maybe Mueller needs to be investigated for fraud and collusion
with North Korea and Iran.
Nice job of keeping this insane relentlessly endless narrative of Russian's changing the
election in any meaningful way. This is McCarthyism the modern day Maddowism. It's all
mainstream wants to talk about. Meanwhile in real life: 1) The majority of the population
doesn't have $500 in the bank to cover emergencies. 2) The War Machine continues to ramp up
to epic levels 3) The USA continues to employ their regime change diplomacy 4) The Life
Expediency in the USA is going down. Opiod's largely to blame 5) The USA is not even in the
top ten among providing Quality Healthcare 6) The USA is Number ONE in passing on the HIGHEST
COST Healthcare I could go, on it's exhausting....
This man is delusional there is no evidence of any collusion why is RealNews interviewing
this hack...watch Aaron Mate show this hack up. The Guardian is a right wing rag now don't
follow it end any association with them. Aaron Mate well done.
The DNC/Hillary corruption was revealed in the emails and they have successfully
distracted the public with a the dangerous fabrication of Russia collusion when the
conversation should be about the corruption of the democratic process. There are too many
complicit media and politicians so willing to go along with it but thankfully most Americans
are awake to the scheme.
In order to read the book I would have to buy the book, get it? An author should be able
to articulate their main arguments in an interview. The emoticons colluding was disturbing
though.
If you ask for actual facts of collusion you are a 'collusion rejectionist'. Hillarious.
Harding is a 'collusion conspiracy theorist'. Harding throws in the murder of Litvinenko as
if this, in any way, relates to the US election. It doesn't. Yes, Russian, US and Israeli
Intelligence kill people regularly for political reasons. Do I need to give Luke Harding a
history lesson? The smiley face emoticon issue, which Harding tried to swerve away from,
shows the level of journalistic quality Harding delivers. Harding deals in smear, supposition
and innuendo to sell books. The misleading cover and title show his journalistic credibility.
He actually raised as evidence of collusion, that Trump wasn't rude to Putin in interviews.
Is he serious? What a hack writer. As a side note, the CIA wrote the book in interfering in
other country's elections and governments. This indignation is a joke. If this is true they
finally got some of their own back. See how it feels?
For the record, this is what these people sound like on Tucker Carlson, too. Tucker had
Adam Schiff on and subjected him to real questions rather than the head-nodding interviews
Schiff is used to. Needless to say, Schiff hasn't been on Tucker Carlson's show since. Pretty
soon they'll start calling people skeptical of the evidence provided thus far "collusion
deniers".
Noted right-wing hack Jeremy Scahill has it exactly right. This guy Harding is just an
opportunist who knows what the audience wants. And he knows that 99% of the people who cite
the book will never read beyond the cover; in fact, he's counting on it. Expect the rest of
his little book tour to look like this: CNN, NPR, BBC, The Young Turks, The David Pakman Show
(tee hee), Huff Po etc etc
*You really should have read the book though. You could have seen that coming a mile away.
Why give him the out? Read the book before you attempt to trap someone with it. You should
still marry me though.
Harding threw all the red herrings he could find! Just because the man has a British
accent doesnt make him above scrutiny. Remember Louise Mensch? This was the sum (or scam) of
all fears: the Cold War , "repressive regime, "opposition crackdown" ,Soviet KGB, throw in
bits of Russian words.This was funny & painful at the same time. I nearly fell off my
chair when Aaron said "emoticons", that part was kinda
surreal.Talk to my friends! Go to Russia! I lived in Russia! I talked to the opposition!
I speak Russian! I thought he was gonna add: my best friends are Russian! My wife is
Russian!Niding is right Luke wasnt prepapred at all.Was it me or was Luke perspiring because
he was struggling? Why was he throwing air quotes? Thanks Aaron!
Brutal interview and painful to watch. I never believed in the Trump/Russia collusion fake
narrative. It doesn't exist. It was made up (FBI insurance policy) against Trump.
Great job Aaron to hold this author's feet to the fire and discredit his conclusions of
Trump/Russian collusion. I hate Trump and would love to see him kicked out of office, but
this Russia-gate conspiracy theory so far has no legs and this author is a posture kid for
this nonsense.
The author repeatedly returns to his talking points when challenged for evidence to
support his assertions. This is how ALL INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. And the claim that
the interviewer had to read the whole book to rightly ask for evidence to support assertions
is utterly ridiculous.
This is a very biased interview. Mueller will tell the last word on Russia meddling Trump
campaign. But you can not question the content of a book you had not read in advance as this
young man does. I have followed the issue from the beginning in CNN and other media and I
have read the book Collusion, which is worth reading, very informative about. So this debate
lead me think this "journalist" may be paid by FSB/Putin.
I would say if you are going to critique the Christian idea of God it's essential you read
the bible if you are going to do it in any meaningful way . I take it you also have not read
the book . This is like debate climate denailists, it's the same tatic , they take some data
and misrepresent it to prove an ideological point . What I don't understand is why . And that
goes to my first point , why even bother debate it at all ? You say he offered no proof , but
he was just defending matte attachs , which if you look into it, are not that credible either
. If he thought he was going to debunk all the claims made in the book, he should of read it,
as he just looks stupid . But if you have not read it either, it's easy to agree with him, as
it's not a genuine debate .
Another Libtard bites the dust, grand claims of collusion without the necessary proof.
Going all the way back the 80' and 90' to justify hearsay. This libtard should be put in jail
for defamation and slander for not have enough proof for those claims.
Luke's book is already discounted, being peddled for barely half of its list price. The
man is a fraud with an anti-Putin vendetta he's trying to settle.
His entire argument is a gish gallop fallacy......... They're throwing dozens of
accusations at Trump, all of them individually weak arguments. If thier were actual fire,
they wouldn't need all of the smoke & mirrors.
It seems (opinion = fact ) in the UK , just walk around and ask ordinary Russians what
they think . The tactical guilt trip as a defensive tool , when you can't answer question .
This is another propagandist colluding with we're not sure who? , believe me anyway , how
dare you not believe me .
Wow!!! That's the best news interview I saw in ages... calmly, respectfully but surely
exposing that joke of a journalist for what he is: a fraud. Tnx Aaron!!! Keep on
truckin'...
Russia seem to have gotten almost nothing out of this Presidency. If there was something
transactional going on then Russian intelligence if far more incompetent than people are
being led to believe.
His answer to the very first Question explains everything, is the collusion ? we have to
go way back to 1987. (I thought this was during the campaign) (IGNORE THE NOISE IN THE MEDIA)
if you look at it, clinton payed many millions from KGB officers to get info on trump during
the campaign.
What a complete fraud this guy is. This is the book version of the "Steele Dossier", just
a bunch of crap telling people what they want to hear to make a quick buck. Bottom
feeders.
Why are we listening? Why did you interview an englishman of questionable character and
background about a case that is in investigation and has not found a single connection. This
book foremost is for profit and attention for the writer's benefit. Can he produce a single
documents to back his statements? My guess is no. Everything he says is hearsay and fiction.
The very first question asked is redirected... always when a question is redirected you can
bet it's all garbage. He's just another babbling backward British pompous bozo looking to
under mind and influence US citizens of our elected president. Brits by nature are globalist.
The small island has for century plagued the world with globalist ideals of using people all
over the world to enrich themselves. NEVER believe a Brit unless they are speaking ills of
their own country which basically has 2 classes, rich and poor.
Great work Aaron. Its great to see an interview that challenges the guest to rationally
explain the basis of proof for this nonsense red herring issue. Harding could not do it
without clear suppositions and assumptions - no proof. The Guardian - my how its prestige has
fallen.....and that guy wrote the book on the collusion and could not justify his case. That
is why his feed cut out - frustration he does not encounter thru corporate media
softball.
It is far too early to write off the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016
election or dismiss how long Russian operatives will cultivate a subject (POTUS Trump). They
often do not know how or where the people they cultivate will eventually end up, but they do
know that they have a hook in them, for future use. It's how they've done business for
decades.
Good job nailing him, however, " Putin is not a nice person" - what kind of BS is that?
Not a nice person, comparing to whom? The Russians seem to like him just fine and that's the
only thing that matters.
really i cringe listening to that guy - that's how that whole bullshit story implodes when
not all parties follow some scripts. thanks aaron - well done. merry xmas @ all.
Luke Harding talks a lot of Nonsense and which kind of secret meetings? What the Hell? He
just making Money with his Book and the truth doesn´t interst him
whatsover!
HARDING has no SHAME... the fact that he can blather this moronic nonsense without
laughing is mind blowing. Aaron just wants to laugh out loud so many times... Harding loves
to offer salacious antidotes regarding how evil Putin is, however there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO
EVIDENCE!
**IF THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR WE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE!** DID HARDING - "the reporter"
(used loosely) contact the DNC in order to find out whether they allowed the FBI to inspect
or examine the servers. This is PURE PROPAGANDA... Trump's phone calls have been monitored
according to retired NSA whistle blowers since 2005. If there was any conversation it would
have been leaked there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever of collusion. The FBI has no
evidence and STEELE has testified in court that other than Carter Page's trip to Moscow the
Dossier is ENTIRELY UNVERIFIED. When the entire thing is shown to have been a hoax will this
idiot retract his drivel. PREET BAHARA -Hillary donor - is the US atty who allowed the
Russian Lawyer into the country.
"... Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!! ..."
"... I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. ..."
"... You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into. ..."
"... Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. ..."
"... This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has. ..."
"... I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night. ..."
"... This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her ..."
"... Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate ..."
"... How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention?? ..."
"... the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda ..."
"... Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his. ..."
This moronic Brit wrote an entire book? Beginning with a visit to trump tower by a soviet
era diplomat who made a factual statement about how lovely Trump Tower is? It is a beautiful
tower, and had I seen the Donald on the streets of NYC, I would have said the same thing.
After a year of no implication.of collusion, we are left with delusion collusion. If the
moron wants to make a great case, how about researching the names of tenants of projects to
which Trump sold the right to his name? Or the Odessan taxi drivers who sometimes drove past
Trump Tower? After 7 minutes, I wondered how the interviewer had any patience for the moron,
except to get his worthless and lazy slime argument into the record. Click. The interviewer
had patience.
Another guy who, when asked for evidence to back up his assertions, answers with a
non-specific hand-wave :'( Nice interview, Aaron - you asked him questions he didn't like,
but you did it politely.
Luke, on the other hand, comes across as rude and petty... not a
great way to present a viewpoint. BTW, I think it's great that TheRealNews interviews people
with various opinions, and isn't afraid to ask them "hard" questions.
Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every
Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and
''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!!
Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North
America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so
diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and
speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. e.g. Green Party Jill Stein's guilt for
being at the same table that Putin sat at for mere minutes long enough to be included in a
photo, now smeared by the press as a Russian asset. I never saw Aaron raise his hands and ape
and gesticulate for added performance. Ultimately, when no evidence was ever presented (as
there is none to be found), this hilariously unfunny supposed-journalist, moreover fiction
author, invented the new term collusion-rejectionist, and promptly grabbed his mouse to click
disconnect and terminate his utter embarassment so expertly elucidated in this interview.
Thank You, Happy Holidays and best of luck in 2018 Aaron!
Bullcrap! Hillary Clinton and her Cronies, secured Trumps win, by how they cheated Bernie
during the 2016 Primary! Trump did not need Russia's, whatever you think they did, Hillary
secured the win for Trump because of her DIRTY POLITICS, against the Democratic Base! Hillary
and her thugs keep this up, they will secure the Republican Control in Washington, and quite
honestly, its what they want! Because I firmly believe that the Clinton's and all whom
support them ARE undercover Republicans, out to, and HAVE, destroyed the Democratic
Party!
This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the
worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of
tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could
convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he
has.
This man is quite hilarious in that even if Putin did hack the election all this
storyteller relates is predicated on the fact that, WE THE PEOPLE are entirely idiotic in in
the US. 'Tis quite condescending @TheRealNews
LUKE= So I think there is proof from my point of view but I don't have any. Only a feeling
and theories that can't be proven. No Evidence but Russia is bad. All oligarchs and
billionaires work with each other to make more money. Of course Putin and Trump had meetings.
So does Jeff Besos and the CIA.
Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good
speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is
flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with
this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate
One question: What kind of nation is modern day Russia? TOTALLY separate question: Did
they conduct some insidious assault on American elections (as though corporations don't do
this already)? These are totally unrelated issues. The human rights situation in Russia may
be- and is- awful. But we can imagine an extremely murderous nation internally that doesn't
happen to be much of a threat externally
Sez Corporatist Hack: "...The Russian media were portraying Hillary as some sort of
warmonger madwoman." Hello: That's EXACTLY what she is. She said one of her first acts as
President would be to declare a no-fly zone in Syria, which Gen. Dunford, testifying before
Congress, said would require going to war with Russia.
But Clinton is a front for the neocon
wing of the MIC, and they have been lusting for a new "Cold" War on the obvious grounds that
it would increase the already appalling amount of US and world resources they suck up. The
war corporations are so driven for profit that a little thing like the possibility of WWIII
is of no concern to them. So they tell themselves the story that the Russians would back down
and go home; the US would then be able to overthrow Assad so the oil companies could get
their damned pipeline across southern Syria; and the Russians, angry at the loss of face,
would ramp up their defense spending, which of course would require the US to ramp up theirs
even more.
Neat plan for never-ending profits, brought to you by Hillary Clinton and the
Warmongers. The problem is that Russia does not fear the US, and knows that it has the raw
power to win a conflict in Syria if it wants to respond that strongly (look up "Zircon"
hyper-sonic missile, which they have thousands of and against which US aircraft carriers have
no defense). And Russia, being legally invited by the legally-elected President of Syria, and
knowing the US to be acting illegally, might just decide to respond if the US attacks its
planes.
And if they send a carrier to the bottom of the Gulf to stop American fighters from
interfering with their legal activities in Syria, then President Clinton would have been
faced with a choice: Go nuclear or go home. Which do you think she would have done? It's a
damn good thing Trump won, detestable as he is. We are not at war with Russia, and that at
least is ahead of where we very likely would have been if the Shill had slimed her way into
power.
Sez Corporatist Hack: "I'm a story teller." No doubt about it, because he's told a bunch
of stories on this video. The Guardian is worthless corporatist trash, and Luke Harding is a
lying propagandist. I wonder who else KOFF*CIA*AHEM is paying his salary?
How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent
opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any
attention??
Aaron batting out the park these regular talking points so easily, It looked like Harding
has never had pushback on this. Twas interesting seeing him on the backfoot.
the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda....what an ass. thanks aaron, for keeping his feet to the fire and not letting him get away with lying. very
satisfying to see these a holes not get away with it for once.
Everything this guy sites happens all the time with many countries involved. So the
question is, why isolate one country? This another case of creating a narrative, and then
looking for non existent facts to back up said narrative. Sounds zealous. I cannot finish
watching this. Good job Aaron.
Tough interview, while he has a point the book should have been read thoroughly, it was a
shame he used that as a point to avoid answering the hard question, "where is the proof?". It
was interesting to hear about "Trump's ties to Russia", I think it was a shame the author
felt it was acceptable to defer to his mistrust (warranted) and bad feelings towards
Putin/Russian power structure in order to seemingly (from my point of view) justify the
position.
This interview goes to show how difficult REAL journalism is, and how REAL
scholarship is very valuable. While the author has a lot of interesting points, on this
issue, I only see this probe/issue as a political wedge used to disenfranchise the presiding
elected president, and the best thing about this whole process is a clear illustration about
how bankrupt and politically corrupt DC is.
The confidence game DC is pushing needs to be
brought down a few levels, and some power needs to go back to the people. We all have our own
part to play, and being a victim, I feel is a waste of time, except as a means of holding
people accountable.
smoke and mirrors. The evidence is so over-whelming that if anything was going
to be prosecuted the trial would already be completed.
This is getting a lot more complicated than it needs to be. The buzzphrase that most
Americans respond to (like Pavlov's dogs) is "Russia meddled in our election!" U.S. elections
have always been "meddled" with. It's enough to say Trump, Kushner & their ilk made a lot
of lucrative financial deals with Russia that turn out to be 1) conflicts of interest for ANY
elected official and 2) abuse of (presidential) power. Isn't that enough?
I know that this person is trying to sell a book, but I see the investigation wrapping up.
It would be pretty hard to carry on for another year. After all, Mueller has said it has
completed all the WH interviews - and the ones at the top of an investigation are always the
last ones questioned. Furthermore, in the first three week of November alone, 4,289 sealed
cases have appeared in federal dockets throughout the nation - including the territories.
There are probably more now. No one knows how many are Muellers, but the 4 unsealed cases are
part of the initial group of filings. My prediction - nothing on Trump and Hillary goes to
prison finally.
Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling
cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this
"storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with
stories like his.
Seriously, RNN? Why do you give this puppets book play. Good for you Erin for questioning
him. He's on the wrong side of this. There are so many connections among Obama FBI, DOJ,
State Dept, Clinton and DNC to Fusion GPS that you're have to be a complete moron not to want
to investigate THAT collusion to swing and election. They ere spying on trump and associates
all last year. If there was collusion the leaky DC swamp would have spilled the beans.With
regard to this collusion with Russia, Trump seems pretty clean. The NSA should know exactly
who hacked the DNC servers the collect every oversees packet transfer. Given they have not
come forward with that evidence I am more inclined to believe it was a leak, especially given
Former NSA cryptographer and IC pro Bill Binney pretty much proved it was a leak when he
showed the transfer rates were only achievable at a local port. Not over the Internet.
Impossible! Trump is an international businessman, some as Clinton's who have just as much
shady history with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Follow the money there is a flow of money
from Russian banks and players to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.
So sad you cannot read the book and you cannot listen and dismiss a really serious threat
to our elections. You did not even know what happened in Estonia. You demonstrate a real lack
of willingness to explore the truth with an open mind.
That was great! The emoticon proof! Hahaha! His tenacity was quasi-religious, especially
in the wrap-up and boils down to "There is evidence of collusion, even though I cannot point
to any evidence."
1987 all the way back when it was called the Soviet Union and was communist country. I am
an Independent, but get a charge out of all the lying and BS going on in the USA and the 2
parties and their zombie followers. Empires going down and the 2 parties are just puppets for
the Military Industrial Congressional Complex/Deep State. Big war coming and need lots of
unemployeed young draftees.
Good job, Aaron! What does the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko have to do with Donald
Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election from the hideous witch?
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual war against terror. ..."
"... Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are 'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys." ..."
"... Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no longer represents your interests? Look no further. ..."
Of the extraordinarily valuable and informative works for which Mr. Valentine is responsible, his latest, CIA As Organized
Crime, may prove to be the best choice as an introduction to the dark realm of America's hidden corruptions and their consequences
at home and around the world. This new volume begins with the unlikely but irrevocable framework by which Mr. Valentine's path
led to unprecedented access to key Agency personnel whose witting participation is summarized by the chapter title: "How William
Colby Gave Me the Keys to the CIA Kingdom."
By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population
of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual
war against terror.
Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that
wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards
of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured
the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are
'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys."
Mr. Valentine has presented us with a major body of work which includes: The Strength of the Wolf; The Strength of the Pack;
The Pheonix Program, to which we may now add The CIA as Organized Crime, and for which we are profoundly indebted.
If you want the inside scoop on the CIA and it's criminal past; this is the book. Additionally, why the Phoenix Program is
pertinent for our own times. This book connects the dots.
If you have been wondering why Homeland Security has fusion centers; why the USA Anti-Patriot Act, NDAA and Rex 84 have been
passed by Congress; you will get your answer here.
A book every intelligent American needs to read and place in a prominent place in their library. Oh, and don't forget after
you read it; spread the word !!! (this book is based upon actual face to face interviews and documents)
Run, don't walk, and get yourself a copy of this book. The author has been warning us for decades about the clear and present
danger that is the CIA I was unaware of Valentine's work for most of those years, perhaps because our media outlets (even the
"anti-establishment" ones like Democracy Now and The Intercept) have been compromised. Valentine's work has been suppressed since
his ground-breaking book on the Phoenix Program.
Not that I didn't know anything about the sordid history. I knew about MK-Ultra, some of the agency's drug running and empire-building
exploits. This work goes much deeper and paints a much bigger picture. The extent of the agency's influence is much greater than
I had imagined.
This is not another history book about dirty tricks. It is not just about our insane foreign policy and empire building. The
cancer of corruption, of outright crime, has metastasized into every agency of the government right here in the US itself. Those
dirty tricks and crimes have become domestic policy- in fusion centers and Homeland Security, in the militarization of local police
and in Congress, from Wall Street to Main Street. Border Patrol, the DEA, Justice and State have all been compromised.
Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no
longer represents your interests? Look no further.
The problem is now. We are the new targets.
Read it and weep, but for God's sake, please read it.
A highly informative and comprehensive book, and a scathing, fearless indictment of government corruption.
I cannot overstate it's importance.
I just picked up this book and have not read it yet--but I am writing this to CORRECT THE RECORD regarding very basic information.
There are 446 PAGES (not 286, as listed above). 160 Pages is a big difference--obviously, QUALITY is more important than quantity--but
I do feel the listing needs be corrected.
The "Inside Look" feature is also cutting off the last 9 chapters of the book, which are as follows:
Chapter 16: Major General Bruce Lawlor: From CIA Officer in Vietnam to Homeland Security Honcho
Chapter 17: Homeland Security: The Phoenix Comes Home to Roost
PART IV: MANUFACTURING COMPLICITY: SHAPING THE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW
Chapter 18: Fragging Bob Kerrey: The CIA and the Need for a War Crimes Tribunal
Chapter 19: Top Secret America Shadow Reward System
Chapter 20: How Government Tries to Mess with Your Mind
Chapter 21: Disguising Obama's Dirty War
Chapter 22: Parallels of Conquest, Past and Present
Chapter 23: Propaganda as Terrorism
Chapter 24: The War on Terror as the Greatest Covert Op Ever
This is a devastating and must-read study of the social and political calamity created by the CIA over the last sixty years.
The portrait shows the criminal character of the agency and finally of the government it is said to serve. The portrait is a double
shock because it shows not just a sordid corruption but a malevolent 'dark side' mafia-style corruption of american civilization
and government. That the CIA controls the drug trade is not the least of the stunning revelations of this history.
This was written almost a year ago. Not author demonstrated tremendous insight which was confirmed by subsequent events.
Notable quotes:
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official now in hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'ιtat. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded
by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as
in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious
electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful
protests to register their opposition.
These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect
Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected
president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.
We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and
the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.
Regime Change in America
In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent
foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years
of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups
were routine under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.
The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political,
administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction
between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.
Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The
US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.
The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected
and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional
ideological boundaries.
Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize
the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal
gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.
Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016
election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect
even before he takes office by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.
The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral
College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.
Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected
president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful
elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations
with Russia were acts of treason.
The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald
Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony
documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the
major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the
'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered
to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!
Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British
official now in hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect.
Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership
was involved in a domestic coup d'ιtat.
CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home against the President-elect.
For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened
the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's
policies) on the United States could be profound "
Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US
president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate
mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.
Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward
an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.
Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the
atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous
organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their
drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.
http://petras.lahaine.org/
"... The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden. ..."
"... In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the Washington Post . ..."
"... In July 2013 the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive. ..."
"... In August 2013 Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon, had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon signed a $600 million deal to provide computing services for the CIA. ..."
"... The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front , George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions" ..."
"... It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue. ..."
"... The Washington Post , which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded" with Trump. ..."
"... The revelation that the sole Russiagate "evidence" was the so-called Steele Dossier - i.e. opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign - which was used by the intelligence community to not only begin the public assertions of Trump's perfidy but to then initiate FISA approved surveillance on the Trump campaign, that is truly astonishing. Instructive then that the NY Times, Washington Post, etc have yet to acknowledge these facts to their readers, and instead have effectively doubled down on the story, insisting that the Russiagate allegations are established fact and constitute "objective reality." That suggests this fake news story will continue indefinitely. ..."
"... What we see here is these bastions of establishment thinking in the USA promoting "objective reality" as partisan - i.e. there is a Clinton reality versus a Trump reality, or a Russian reality versus a "Western" reality, facts and documentation be damned. This divorce from objectivity is a symptom of the overall decline of American institutions, an indicate a future hard, rather than soft, landing near the end of the road. ..."
The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence
services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden.
In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents
from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists,
Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the
Washington Post . Some of those documents were published by Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian , others by Barton
Gellman in the Washington Post . Several other international news site published additional material though the mass of
NSA papers that Snowden allegedly acquired never saw public daylight.
In July 2013 the Guardian was
forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive.
In August 2013 Jeff Bezos
bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon,
had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they
invested
in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon
signed a $600 million
deal to provide computing services for the CIA.
In October 2013 Pierre Omidyar, the owner of Ebay, founded
First Look Media and hired Glenn Greenwald and Laura
Poitras. The total planned investment was said to be $250 million. It took up to February 2014 until the new organization launched
its first site, the Intercept . Only a few NSA stories appeared on it. The Intercept is a rather mediocre site.
Its management is
said to be chaotic . It publishes few stories of interests and one might ask if it ever was meant to be a serious outlet. Omidyar
has worked,
together with the U.S. government, to force regime change onto Ukraine. He had
strong ties with the Obama administration.
Snowden had copies of some
20,000 to 58,000 NSA files . Only 1,182 have been
published . Bezos and Omidyar obviously helped the NSA to keep more than 95% of the Snowden archive away from the public. The
Snowden papers were practically privatized into trusted hands of Silicon Valley billionaires with ties to the various secret services
and the Obama administration.
The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is
estimated to own a shameful
$90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use
of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been
a CIA front , George Soros' Open Society foundation is
one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions".
It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the
NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue.
The Interceptburned
a intelligence leaker, Realty Winner, who had trusted its journalists to keep her protected. It
smeared the President of Syria as neo-nazi based on an (intentional?) mistranslation of one of his speeches. It additionally
hired a Syrian supporter of the CIA's "regime change by Jihadis" in Syria. Despite its
pretense of "fearless, adversarial journalism" it hardly deviates from
U.S. policies.
The Washington Post , which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts
of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded"
with Trump.
Just today it provides two stories and one op-ed that lack any factual evidence for the anti-Russian claims made in them.
In
Kremlin trolls burned across the Internet as Washington debated options the writers insinuate that some anonymous writer who
published a few pieces on Counterpunch and elsewhere was part of a Russian operation. They provide zero evidence to back that claim
up. Whatever that writer
wrote (see
list at end) was run of the mill stuff that had little to do with the U.S. election. The piece then dives into various cyber-operations
against Russia that the Obama and Trump administration have discussed.
A
second story in the paper today is based on "a classified GRU report obtained by The Washington Post." It claims that the Russian
military intelligence service GRU started a social media operation one day after the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was illegally
removed from his office in a U.S. regime change
operation . What the story lists as alleged GRU puppet postings reads like normal internet talk of people opposed to the fascist
regime change in Kiev. The Washington Post leaves completely unexplained who handed it an alleged GRU report from 2014,
who classified it and how, if at all, it verified its veracity. To me the piece and the assertions therein have a strong odor of
bovine excrement.
An op-ed in the very same Washington Post has a similar smell. It is written by the intelligence flunkies Michael Morell
and Mike Rogers. Morell had hoped to become CIA boss under a President Hillary Clinton. The op-ed (which includes a serious misunderstanding
of "deterrence") asserts that
Russia never stopped its cyberattacks on the United States :
Russia's information operations tactics since the election are more numerous than can be listed here . But to get a sense of the
breadth of Russian activity, consider the messaging spread by Kremlin-oriented accounts on Twitter, which cybersecurity and disinformation
experts have tracked as part of the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The author link to this page which claims to list Twitter
hashtags that are currently used by Russian influence agents. Apparently the top issue Russia's influence agents currently promote
is "#merrychristmas".
When the authors claim Russian operations are "more numerous than can be listed here" they practically admit that they have not
even one plausible operation they could cite. Its simply obfuscation to justify their call for more political and military measures
against Russia. This again to distract from the real reasons Clinton lost the election and to introduce a new Cold War for the benefit
of weapon producers and U.S. influence in Europe.
If what you allege is true about Greenwald and the Intercept, then why hasn't Snowden spoken out about it yet? Surely he would
have said something about the Intercept and Greenwald keeping important stories buried by now. Yet, as far as I can tell, he has
a good relationship with Greenwald. I find it hard to believe hat a man who literally gave up everything he had in life to leak
important docs would remain silent for so long about a publishing cover up. I don't really like the Intercept and I think your
analysis of its content is accurate, but I do find it hard to believe that the NSA docs were "bought" back by the CIA.
If what you allege is true about Greenwald and the Intercept, then why hasn't Snowden spoken out about it yet?
_____________________________________________________
My understanding is that early on, Snowden placed his trove of documents in the exclusive care of Glenn Greenwald and his associates.
Although Snowden has since become a public figure in his own right, and his opinions on state-security events and issues are solicited,
as far as I know Snowden has no direct responsibility for managing the material he downloaded.
I haven't followed Snowden closely enough to know how familiar he may be with the contents of the reported "20,000 to 58,000
NSA files" turned over to GG/Omidyar. Snowden presumably took pains to acquire items of interest in his cache as he accumulated
classified material, but even if he has extraordinary powers of recall he may not remember precisely what remains unreleased.
FWIW, I was troubled from the first by one of the mainstays of GG's defense, or rationale, when it became clear that he was
the principal, and perhaps sole, executive "curator" of the Snowden material. In order to reassure and placate nervous "patriots"--
and GG calls himself a "patriot"-- he repeatedly emphasized that great care was being taken to vet the leaked information before
releasing it.
GG's role as whistleblower Snowden's enabler and facilitator was generally hailed uncritically by progressive-liberals and
civil-liberties advocates, to a point where public statements that should've raised skeptical doubts and questions were generally
passively accepted by complacent admirers.
Specifically, my crap detectors signaled "red alert" early on, when Greenwald (still affiliated with "The Guardian", IIRC)
took great pains to announce that his team was working closely with the US/UK governments to vet and screen Snowden's material
before releasing any of it; GG repeatedly asserted that he was reviewing the material with the relevant state-security agencies
to ensure that none of the released material would compromise or jeopardize government operatives and/or national security.
WTF? Bad enough that Greenwald was requiring the world to exclusively trust his judgment in deciding what should be released
and what shouldn't. He was also making it clear that he wasn't exactly committed to disclosing "the worst" of the material "though
the heavens fall".
In effect, as GG was telling the world that he could be trusted to manage the leaked information responsibly, he was also telling
the world that it simply had to trust his judgment in this crucial role.
To me, there was clearly a subliminal message for both Western authorities and the public: don't worry, we're conscientious,
patriotic leak-masters. We're not going to irresponsibly disclose anything too radical, or politically/socially destabilizing.
GG and the Omidyar Group have set themselves up as an independent "brand" in the new field of whistleblower/hacker impresario
and leak-broker.
Like only buying NFL-approved merchandise, or fox-approved eggs, the public is being encouraged to only buy (into) Intercept-approved
Snowden Leaks. It's a going concern, which lends itself much more to the "modified limited hangout" approach than freely tossing
all the biggest eggs out of the basket.
GG found an opportunity to augment his rising career as a self-made investigative journalist and civil-liberties advocate.
Now he's sitting pretty, the celebrity point man for a lucrative modified limited hangout enterprise. What is wrong with this
picture?
@16 I just see no evidence of that aside from fitting the narrative of people who are convinced of a cover up in leaked docs.
Moreover, there is no way Russia would continue to offer Snowden asylum if he was gov agent. I'm sure Russian intelligence did
a very thorough background check on him.
@17 that's simply not true. He regularly tweets, gives online talks and publishes on his own. He has not used either Poitras
or Greenwald as a means of communication for years. And he has never dropped a single hint of being disappointed or frustrated
with how documents and info was published.
It just seems so implausible given the total lack of any sign of Snowden's dissatisfaction.
The revelation that the sole Russiagate "evidence" was the so-called Steele Dossier - i.e. opposition research funded by the
Clinton campaign - which was used by the intelligence community to not only begin the public assertions of Trump's perfidy but
to then initiate FISA approved surveillance on the Trump campaign, that is truly astonishing. Instructive then that the NY Times,
Washington Post, etc have yet to acknowledge these facts to their readers, and instead have effectively doubled down on the story,
insisting that the Russiagate allegations are established fact and constitute "objective reality." That suggests this fake news
story will continue indefinitely.
What we see here is these bastions of establishment thinking in the USA promoting "objective reality" as partisan - i.e.
there is a Clinton reality versus a Trump reality, or a Russian reality versus a "Western" reality, facts and documentation be
damned. This divorce from objectivity is a symptom of the overall decline of American institutions, an indicate a future hard,
rather than soft, landing near the end of the road.
G @ 1 and 18: My understanding is that Edward Snowden has been advised (warned?) by the Russian government or his lawyer in Moscow
not to reveal any more than he has said so far. The asylum Moscow has offered him may be dependent on his keeping discreet. That
may include not saying much about The Intercept, in case his communications are followed by the NSA or any other of the various
US intel agencies which could lead to their tracking his physical movements in Russia and enable any US-connected agent or agency
(including one based in Russia) to trace him, arrest him or kill him, and cover up and frame the seizure or murder in such a way
as to place suspicion or blame on the Russian government or on local criminal elements in Russia.
I believe that Snowden does have a job in Russia and possibly this job does not permit him the time to say any more than what
he currently tweets or says online.
There is nothing in MoA's article to suggest that Glenn Greenwald is deliberately burying stories in The Intercept. B has said
that its management is chaotic which could suggest among other things that Greenwald himself is dissatisfied with its current
operation.
@21 I'm not disputing that moneyed interests might have been leaned on by the CIA to stop publishing sensitive info. What I'm
disputing is the idea that people like Greenwald have deliberately with-held information that is in the public interest. I doubt
that, regardless of the strength of the Intercept as a publication.
@25 What interest would the Russian gov have in helping protect NSA? I assume Russia loves the idea of the US Intel agencies
being embarrassed. Snowden speaks his mind about plenty of domestic and international events in US. I have never seen him act
like he's being censored.
G @ 25: Moscow would have no interest in helping protect the NSA or any other US intel agency. The Russians would have advised
Snowden not to say more than he has said so far, not because they are interested in helping the NSA but because they can only
protect him as long as he is discreet and does not try to say or publish any more that would jeopardise his safety or give Washington
an excuse to pressure Moscow to extradite him back to the US. That would include placing more sanctions on Russia until Snowden
is given up.
There is the possibility also that Snowden trusts (or trusted) Greenwald to know what to do with the NSA documents. Perhaps
that trust was naively placed - we do not know.
b, a big exposition of facts, rich in links to more facts.
This is important material for all to understand.
Snowden is "the squirrel over there!" A distraction turned into a hope.
Compared to Assange, who is being slow-martyred in captivity, Snowden is a boy playing with gadgets.
Why did not Snowden make certain a copy of his theft went to Wikileaks? That would have been insurance.
Since he did not, it all could be just a distraction.
What is known about the Snowden affair is we received proof of what we knew. Not much else. For those who didn't know, they
received news.
And ever since, the shape of things from the Deep State/Shadow Government/IC has been lies and warmongering against American freedoms
and world cooperation among nations.
Fascism is corporate + the police state. The US government is a pure fascist tyranny that also protects the Empire and Global
Hegemony.
We connect the dots and it's always the same picture. It was this way in the 60s,70s,80s,90s, 00s, and this forlorn decade.
Fascism more bold each decade. Billionaires and millionaires have always been in the mix.
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
Back in August of 2016, which feels like
millions of years ago in terms of everything that's happened in American politics since that time, Glenn
Greenwald published an article in The Intercept titled "
Democrats'
Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S.
". I took note of the
article because I look up to Greenwald, but because of my focus on the US presidential election I couldn't
really see the looming terror on the horizon that he was warning of at the time.
After the election I started getting comments on my
anti-Democratic establishment articles accusing them of being "Kremlin propaganda", and I had no idea how to
respond to this. I'm an Australian mother who started doing political commentary last year because I fell in
love with Bernie Sanders; I've never been to Russia, I've never been involved with Russia, and at that point my
interest in Russia amounted to an affection for Regina Spektor, those cool fur hats and the movie
Spies Like Us
. I'd certainly never in my life been accused of writing
propaganda.
Now these comments have become a daily
occurrence. I make unapologetically frequent use of social media blocking features, but I still get accused of
being a Kremlin propagandist multiple times a day for my skepticism of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and my
criticism of the Democratic party.
And now pro-establishment outlets are starting to
publish attack editorials full of outright lies about me. Rantt News ran a
hit piece
on me last month which
reported
completely falsely that I'm a Russian shill hired "to spread alternative facts and false
equivalencies in order to divide leftists and ensure Trump, Ryan, their cabal of billionaires, and their
newfound Russian friends all continue to enjoy power at the expense of your civil rights." To substantiate his
claim the author cited two articles of mine that I'd written for the Melbourne site Newslogue which were then
republished
without my permission by a website called Russia Insider, with whom I have never had contact
apart from my recent request that they remove the articles.
As I pointed out in
my response to the Rantt smear piece
, Russia Insider very clearly labels those articles as copies that it
took from elsewhere. Here is a screenshot from the
first one
, which very plainly labels the article as having come from Newslogue:
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
"... With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics. Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government ..."
"... The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony alert). ..."
"... That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics (another irony alert) of Russia. ..."
The irony and hypocrisy as well as the buffoonery of the US Beltway Junta is certainly in
full display with it's latest Russophobe allegation of election tampering. Put aside all the
obvious items such as, zero evidence, US elections are already rigged by the US elites before
a single vote is cast, the US has been tampering in just about every countries elections for
decades overtly and covertly- and just consider the more recent attempt BY THE US to tamper
in Russian elections through the ever-handy NED.
With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his
chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian
political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics.
Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government
The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully
funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony
alert).
That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists
should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics
(another irony alert) of Russia.
But yes, of course, let's Call it Democracy and have some pretend outrage in the US
Propaganda Sector where the US Chattering Classes are aghast that Russia won't allow the NED
to interfere in it's elections.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
The key reason of Trump victory was the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA -- voters rejected candidates from two major and
discredited parties and elected outsider -- Trump is vain hopes that he can change the situation for the better (similar hope were
during lection of Obama who also positioned himself as an outsider). So far it looks like he betrayed his voters becoming
"Republican Obama" with fame "Make America Great Again" slogan (great for whom, for military industrial complex ?) instead of
Obama fake slogan "change we can believe in".
Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. ..."
"... Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present ..."
"... Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. ..."
"... Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about: ..."
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false.
Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER
the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present.
Is the investigation a sham? Most of what you read about it is supposition coming from partisan reporters working for partisan
newspapers. The actual facts are few and far between.
Manafort was clearly influence-peddling but for Turkey and a Ukrainian oligarch. Flynn clear did lie but his actions, requesting
Russia delay a response to the expulsion of diplomat and that Russia block a resolution against Israel, appear not to be of themselves
illegal. Trump Jr holding a meeting with a Maltese professor of international relations, a Russian criminal lawyer and a "niece"
of Putin who wasn't in fact a niece of Putin was neither here nor there unless Trump Jr. lied to the FBI.
There is no evidence that the Steele dossier corroborates any of the above acts, but if the Obama regime really used it to
get a FISA warrant then that needs to be investigated. Even the author of the dossier admits it might be 30% wrong.
As for Jill Stein, it's news to me that Mueller is investigating her when it seems to be some Democrats in the Senate who are
doing so.
There have been a lot of "leaks" about the Mueller investigation but most reports suggest none of the leaks come from the investigation
itself which seems to be watertight. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what comes out later and that Trump has claimed he
has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are
going to be disappointed. And nobody can then say that they weren't warned.
What was the lie? You have the "lie" and no one else has it. There is no lie. There wasn't even a lie to Pence. Flynn was NSC
advisor, prior campaign and transition advisor on Nation Security. He was protecting the President's "moves" and doing the President's
business.
Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated
out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to
deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about:
Russia hacked Hillary's server.
Putin poisoned the dissident.
Putin shot the reporter.
Kremlin killed Nemstov on the bridge,
Assad used chemical weapons,
Russia invaded Crimea,
It's all memes for people to accept as facts. Mike Flynn's job is to lie to everyone but his commander-in-chief. That's what
he did. In other words, he told "the truth" which everyone should know could be a lie. Flynn was working for President-elect Trump
as his top Intel man. Of course, he would lie. He spent 33 years in military Intel, rose to the top and told a million lies. Spies
lie. Espionage is about truth and untruth.
A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.
The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN,
their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that
he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine,
call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea,
maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand
NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist
attack.
Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too
(picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to
wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and
states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who
"threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is
true.
If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national
security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and
ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the
legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national
security threats" as Iran and DPRK.
Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't
negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here
a sort of détente is possible.
"Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the
rubes."
Exactly. And that condition seems to appertain to the formation of most domestic and
foreign policies emanating from Washington these day. That's what you get in a country where
folks like to gorge themselves on the swill of cable news and talk radio.
So now we know who requested the raw intelligence on Team Trump with the names of American
Citizens 'unmasked'. It was then National Security Advisor Susan Rice:
White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan
Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of
occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S.
officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the
government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not
targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally.
Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in
reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
Maybe she will claim a video caused her to commit a felony?
As I noted
a while back , while Obama and Loretta Lynch authorized the expansion of who could request
the unmasking of Americans caught up in surveillance, the process still required a paper trail
of who the request was from and for what purpose. From the law itself:
For every entity in the US Intelligence Community involved with the intercepts of Team
Trump, the head of that entity should have filled out this request, including:
(U) Use of information. The IC element will explain how it will use the raw SIGINT,
to include identifying the particular authorized foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence missions or functions that are the basis for its request .
Skipping down, we get to another key item: who reviewed and approved these requests:
C. (U) Evaluation of requests. A high-level NSA official designated by the DIRNSA will
review requests for raw SIGINT covered by these Procedures. NSA will document its
approval decisions in writing and include a statement explaining how the request fully
complies with paragraph A.
OK, a key person who should have participated in the legal distribution of intercepts
involving members of Team Trump would be the Director of NSA and whomever they designated
to review the requests.
Note that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) is accepting the requests made
by the National Security Advisor (a different NSA). Today that would be one Michael Rogers, who
had to review and concur on Rice's request.
Interesting enough, one would have thought the FBI would be the organization with due cause
to unmask Americans for investigation. Why would the head of NSA be investigating Americans and
violating their 4th Amendment rights?
Well, that seems pretty obvious given that all this ill-gotten information landed in the
hands of the left wing news media, to fuel diversionary stories about some elusive
Trump-Russian connection. The fact this information takes a left turn through the office of NSA
on its way to the news media is telling in itself.
Clearly what caught Susan Rice was the paper trail of her requests, as is confirmed in the
article:
In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in
intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the
attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests
and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
The strange thing is, if not for all the leaks to the newspapers, I doubt this review of the
logs would have happened! She and Team Obama triggered their own demise.
Of course, all this was leaked to a Dem-Friendly news outlet, which tried to spin this as a
nothing-burger and claim this is not the smoking gun.
But of course it's the smoking gun!
Let's pick up where the left wing news media tried to stop us from proceeding. Who tipped
off Rice on which raw data to unmask? And who was unmasked? The answers will inform us on her
intentions.
For example, if Rice's request was broad and yielded a range of Americans unmasked that
would be a general request without a target.
But if her request was against specific events with specific foreign players, which only
yielded results that led to only Team Trump, then that is a different matter. That
would be political targeting and a felony.
Finally, Susan Rice would never, ever do this on her own initiative. She would
never risk "The Obama Legacy" over this. A legacy, I must say, that is now in tatters based on
this news. It is just a question of whether the destruction of his legacy was due to ineptitude
or criminal intent.
There is much more to learn here. Everyone who did this knew they were crossing some serious
lines. They knew this because they had to put in place the processes to allow it. And since
these unmasking processes were laid out in January of this year, everyone knew they were up to,
if not over, those Constitutional lines.
Rice should be pulled in front of Congress and asked point blank under what authority was
she, the National Security Advisor, requesting names of US Citizens and their communication
contenrs? Recall, some of these requests are not related to Russia at all!
Color revolutions are false flag operations of regime change based on deception, fueling the resentment and delegitimization+ of
the elected government and fake promises to population.
Notable quotes:
"... color revolutions are psychosocial operations of deception. ..."
"... It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership. ..."
"... Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks. ..."
"... History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. ..."
"... to help deconstruct the deception ..."
"... A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ ..."
Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. Should the casual reader
immediately wonder what a "color revolution" is, keep reading, our view here is unique, but we most certainly have some answers.
Let us first begin with the Wikipedia definition. That website introduces the concept by stating the following:
"Color revolution(s)is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed
in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000s. Some observers have called the events
a revolutionary wave .
"Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used
nonviolent resistance , also called
civil resistance . Such methods as demonstrations,
strikes and interventions havebeen [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate
democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their
symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly
student activists in organizing creative non-violent
resistance.
"These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the
Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia's
Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine's
Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon's
Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the
previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution (2005),
in Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq's Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution (1989), but
failed in Iran's Green Revolution
(20092010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation
or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be
authoritarian ."
What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding, and at least any notion that color revolutions
are psychosocial operations of deception.
It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend
millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.
Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations:
destabilization without the tanks.
The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows
that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other,
sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive,
so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often -- or in what context
-- they have fallen prey.
Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last
ten years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.
But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear
alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the emotional spectrum, and by
that we mean desire, and all that drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.
Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public
relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each
of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes
and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences' intellect,
the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.
(Legs for educational purposes only)
Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular
one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.
It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers
in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents,
local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental
organizations.
Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets
with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with
the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.
Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to
veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.
Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading
interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.
And this is where we come in: to help deconstruct the deception .
But we will not just cover color revolutions here, as color revolutions are bound up in the larger geopolitical universe.
A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages
gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ . It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive)
is necessary to understanding the purpose of the color revolution.
Toward that end, we will discuss and analyze relationships of global power in great detail. We will highlight specific institutions
of power; identify what their power rests upon; draw attention to the individuals that finance and direct their activities; speculate
upon some of their motives; and get to know the broad range of tools they use to achieve them, tools which include the color revolution.
As in-depth studies into the color revolution are far too rare, and as the issue itself is far too obscure, we hope to draw more
attention to it; to spark discussion and even debate.
It is an issue that takes time and patience. And it is for those that are willing to provide this time and patience that we offer
this site.
"Never utter these words: 'I do not know this, therefore it is false.' One must study to know; know to understand; understand
to judge." --Apothegm of Narada
This article and discussion now is almost one year old, but some people predicted that Trump will betray all his
election promises with ease and will just try to survive color regulation against him and pander to Wall Street, Israel and
neocons. Which is what he is currently doing. He proved to be far below the intellectual level required for a good president
of such country as the USA. Blunders that he already did are inexcusable. May be this is age.
Notable quotes:
"... The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system. ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. ..."
"... My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?) ..."
"... He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system. ..."
"... Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words. ..."
"... Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen. ..."
"... Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. ..."
"... A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest. ..."
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump
are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal
Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not
want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially
oppose the entire political system.
... ... ...
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of
the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian
masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for
English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or
"rabble").
It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are
now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods.
And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people –
so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation
their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to
Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again
in 2017.
Trump is part of neocon. If anything, trump is part of color revolution, not against it. I
do not see his administration turn out well with his action so far.
Trump is also a idiot. Any one pitch a fight with a neighbor like he is doing is not suit to
deal with relation.
Talk about relation, check out internet video clips and see how much respect he give to his
wife.
My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a
champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as
Crosstalk recently characterized him?)
So who is there to champion the people and oppose the monstrous elite? Us -- just us. Each
and all of us, and we need to get our acts together. If there is no 'great leader' then we
have to lead ourselves: distributed leadership with collective intelligence and power.
He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he
is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system.
We need to make sure we take out garbage in every election, we will win in the end.
we can not only see things in one perspective. But it seems not something come naturally
out side of east Asia.
I don't understand why everything has to be either controlled opposition or controlled
support.
Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of
neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really
is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot
of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be
readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely
the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us
with their own words.
Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as
outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people,"
whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for
their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent
from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how
radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to
make it happen.
The readers of this website should cheer Trump's willingness to trample on the neoliberal
narrative, but their own livelihoods will not be guaranteed by Trump or anyone else in
power.
Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion.
Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. So I am fully for get rid of her, and do
not let Trump getting away with anything. So far, trump's actions are pity, until he cause
some real war somewhere. I love to see MSM got taken down.
Khrushchev says to Zhou Enlai, "The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that
I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class."
Zhou replies, "True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class."
I don't know if this is a true story, but Trump may end up obliged to betray his class
like others have done in the past if we assume all rich people belong to the same class with
homogeneous interests.
A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social
elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed
the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as
a guest.
He isn't a member of "the elite" – other than the one of his own making. It's an odd thing but true.
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
Former FBI Director James Comey is in meltdown mode after his good buddy, the Deputy
Director of the FBI Andy McCabe, just "spilled the beans" to the House Intelligence Committee.
It was a "closed door" hearing, but we now have evidence that you need to know. McCabe
incriminated his pals, and that's really bad news for Comey. Immediately, Comey sent out a
cryptic message to President Donald Trump as he sees his life crumbling before him.
Source:
Comey Panics & Sends Message To Trump After His FBI Buddy Andy McCabe 'Spills The Beans'
https://goo.gl/2oK75n
What do you think of this video? Let us know in the comments below, and in addition, share
this on social media.
Don't let them get you down: "We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell
us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all
before us, and with just as much apparent reason." Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1830)
"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."
"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."
"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."
"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."
"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."
"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."
"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."
"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."
"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."
According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour,
FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials
discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.
That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after
they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research
reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly
conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.
There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era
FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated
with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the
wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The
upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the
point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the
heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's
dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his
scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his
claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were
used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.
There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and
the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired
the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the
dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one,
after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden.
The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see,
the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months
away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI
"can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to
undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his
account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate
allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman
fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend
to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that
the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship
and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its
counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.
But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia"
that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the
allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a
question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the
House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the
question is critical for three reasons:
(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the
Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies
controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced
by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims
of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the
court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence
reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.
(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was
"salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same
way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still
unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months
earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ
used them in an application to the FISA court.
(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted
by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could
be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked --
as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system.
If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin
regime.
How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the
Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted
the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal
inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has
the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the
secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of
legislatively created executive agencies.
In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing
indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however,
that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of
generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I
corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the
travel, you must be right about the crime.
Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected
Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe
corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and
gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI
appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out
nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.
How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for
what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's
private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to
investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British
bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's
organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's
most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other
corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their
"outstanding assistance."
At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational
Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate
deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce
President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's
office.
To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS
(which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS
was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson
appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day
conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
(see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton
campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and
DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.
Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect
that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators
to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.
But that is just the beginning of the bias story.
At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly
before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be
brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified
information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to
investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President
Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI,
shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended
and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to
use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in
their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in
any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects;
the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac
meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton
was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she
would not be charged.
The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy
FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her
(unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100
million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean
Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted
U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.
The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude
that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not
be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led
the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of
Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.
The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary
Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that
Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA
warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially
tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was
reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August
2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the
Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September
2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court
to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying
continued into Trump's presidency.
The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the
warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application
would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI
lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was
having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department --
federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.
Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the
time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to
understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.
June 2016
In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the
"dossier."
In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been
"cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform
to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in
capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be
used against Trump.
In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his
supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go
on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to
Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump
campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email
that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump
campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.
July 2016
Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic
distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7
commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President
Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on
leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July
trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia
and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received
that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings
with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been
informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate
Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation"
in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said
to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."
Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of
staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal
Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in
Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to
have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information --
on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin
further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat'
on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."
The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic
National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.
In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close
associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"
between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The
conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as
intermediaries."
The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to
the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full
knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo,
"the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as
a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense
commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who
needed to cauterise the subject."
Late July to Early August 2016
The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an
intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National
Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do
not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with
government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a
friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele
made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.
August 2016
On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent
Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE
SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not
elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those
allegations.
On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office
at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and
needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought
highly unlikely.
September 2016
Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA
court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had
received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine
whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with
such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic
sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson.
Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not
referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were
actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead
readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was
official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were
briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin
officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid
mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the
Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on
which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which
Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him
about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story
recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts
with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."
Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch
in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime,
championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged
that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government
officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting
with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy
sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name
until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)
Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an
intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit
against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI
interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's
special-counsel investigation.
Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted
informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the
Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S.
officials." According to the Post:
The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy
declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the
Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of
Moscow, officials said.
Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence
operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a
federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative
and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with
Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.
I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application
included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported
"other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very
likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the
meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this
Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the
FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had
not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.
First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016
that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian
intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources
-- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013
investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an
agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things:
exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's
prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation.
According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one
of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.
Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post
asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence
of a crime." That is not accurate.
Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause
showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is
different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1)
applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that
the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine
anti-American activities.
By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2)
applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities
on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities
(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States";
(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international
terrorism;
(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of
a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the
commission of these criminal activities.
All of these involve evidence of a crime.
The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the
allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering
-- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include
treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been
accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal
activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it
certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded
in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the
Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle
for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media
narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift
sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and
President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's
the word? -- resist.
No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a
year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and
obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.
An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected
contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling
around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't
sound like that to me.
The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible
method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.
Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at
the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the
full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.
This will take
some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names
to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is
in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming
activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.
Other
They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of
Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?
"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at
which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency
......."
"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was
actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after
all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden."
This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was
supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all
this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.
Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant
they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will
illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.
We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided
us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.
Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.
But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to
answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter
Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research,
then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of
the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump
which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know
this.
These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when
politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to
overthrow the elected government.
Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as
standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same
conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really
can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt.
Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's
Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.
(VIDEO) There is a provable corruption at high level of FBI and group of high level official which
engaged in constant and deliberate undermining the rule of law and enforce their opinion on
American people.
Newt Gingrich says they're all going to jail. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with Fox
News' Sean Hannity called the spying on President Trump and the cover-up of Hillary Clinton's
wrongdoing one of the worst breaches of our justice system ever
"... "I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs to be done for the good of the future. ..."
"... The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller. ..."
"... A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election. ..."
Last year, the marionettes rebelled. Naturally, the Great Puppeteer Counter-revolt of
2017 followed.
"I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that
out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special
counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That
Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and
something needs to be done for the good of the future. "
Leaving aside the imprudence of the president firing the man investigating his campaign's
alleged ties to Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump certainly possesses the right
to dismiss Mueller. Unelected people who work for the man elected president do not possess the
right to thwart the legal directives of their boss.
The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller.
A fine line exists between anonymous, unelected, unaccountable government officials
undermining the president's legal directives and such people working to overturn the results of
last year's election. One might argue the two as one in the same differing only in degree.
Did the Russians meddle in our electoral process in 2016 or do entrenched bureaucrats do so
on a constant basis? How one answers that question dictates one's response to this current
controversy.
November's results, one might think, would have sparked epiphanies. Americans voted for a
populist outsider to, in his words, "drain the swamp." Brennan's words indicate that the swamp
thrives six months after inauguration. The election neither hastened the drain nor chastened
the creatures from the swamp. As the late, great Stan Evans oft reflected, people go to
Washington imagining it a swamp only to soon regard it as a hot tub. Who wants to vacate a hot
tub?
A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns
resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of
this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted
by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes
off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that
directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is
an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election.
Consider any massive change in America over the last half century or so. The demographic sea
change in the United States occurred in large part in spite, not because, of U.S. immigration
laws. Courts, not the people, determined the legal status of abortion, gay marriage, school
prayer, and much else. On important questions regarding the environment, the internet, and
health care unelected bureaucrats make the rules under which we live. Such policy
change exposes the metachange of process change that allows unelected people to
impose their will on massive numbers of people. Tolerating the hijacking of policy soon leads
to empowered hijackers thinking they can hijack the presidency.
The Constitution decrees, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government." Do the deep-state puppeteers imagine that this principle does
not apply to Washington?
Donald Trump attempts to bring down the curtain on the long-running Puppet Show on the
Potomac. Naturally, Charlie McCarthy finds this more liberating than Edgar Bergen
This is American Maydan -- a plot to depose legitimate (albeit widely hated) government. History repeats. And Mueller is a part
of the game to depose Trump for sure. As he is is supported by by powerful anti-Trump forces Trump can't simply fire him without risk
of provoking political crisis. He is in Yanukovich position now and need to negotiate from the position of weakness, not strength.
Now it looks more and more plausible that Steele dossier was a joint operation of CIA and MI6 to discredit Trump: an insurance as
Peter Strzok told his paramour.
The desperation of U.S. liberals to find some truth in the claims that Donald Trump's campaign staff colluded with Russian state
actors is approaching infinity.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee all but confirms that the only 'proof' the FBI
and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have of collusion is the discredited "Trump Dossier."
This dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele and sold to the Clinton Campaign as opposition research by Fusion GPS. McCabe
stonewalled the HIC on this matter but couldn't point to anything in the dossier that the FBI verified to be true other than publicly-known
knowledge of Carter Page visiting Moscow in 2016.
And the last time I checked (as least for now) visiting Moscow is not a crime.
Neither is what Michael Flynn did a crime either, but let's not bring facts in to dash the hope of the terminally insane.
McCabe has to stonewall on this issue
otherwise he and the rest of the FBI are guilty of acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton to assist in spying on her political opponent.
Because that's where all of this leads if people would take their ideological blinders off for five seconds and look at what we actually
know as opposed to what we 'just know to be true.'
Everyone involved in this sordid affair should be tried for espionage and treason.
Those prominent liberals running around protesting the mere thought of Donald Trump shutting down the Mueller investigation to
'protect the sanctity of our elections' are a bunch of simpering morons.
And I'm sick to death of the blatant and rank hypocrisy when it comes to election fraud in this country.
For this reason alone, the Mueller investigation should be shut down.
This is the session that happened just before appointment of the Special prosecutor. So it was a interesting moment which relael
the growd work for the appointment of the Special prosecutor and the extent US Congress was involved in this activity. So a part
of Congress was also active in the plot to depose Trump.
It is also interesting due to the fact that McCabe, the person at the center of Steele dossier controversy at FBI
was present. As you can see everybody try to hype Russian threat for their own political gain. And McCabe clearly played into
inflaming this paranoia further with his answers.
Also interesting is that while answering "yes" about Russian interference in election was the most safe answer to give, but the
real question is not about Russian interference per se, but whether the level of Russian interference exceeded in scope British interference
(criminal story with Stele dossier and wiretapping of Trump tower), Israel (via Israel lobbyists, NGOs, Kushner and Trump donors)
and Saudi interference (donations to Clinton campaign) to name a few. If the answer is "no", then this is clearly a witch hunt.
Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalism unclear. It does resist enlargement of
the US neoliberal empire as it has its own geopolitical interests in former USSR space. How would the US react if Russia helped
to depose legitimate government in Mexico and started to supply arms in order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government
would consider were occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal is not illegal. And
there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.
Notable quotes:
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the extent of Russian activities in the 2016
election and its conclusion that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using
misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.
ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.
STEWART: Yes, Senator.
ROGERS: Yes I do.
DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.
MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.
MCCABE: Yes.
WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask this question is consequently that committee
assess -- or that community assessment was unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation
state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.
I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr. McCabe for as long as you are Acting
FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links
between Russia and the Trump campaign?
MCCABE: I absolutely do.
WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48 hours it's critically important that we
have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee
supports them, supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.
MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.
WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu all over again in terms of the release
of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the
type of tactics that Russia has used.
Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in 2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved
in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform
-- platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there some general sense -- Director Coats
I know you've only been in the job for a short period of time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it
was Russia in 2016 other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.
COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of collection and analysis relative to what
the influence has been and potentially could be in future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met
with the Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was the main topic?
Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe and other places. It's clear though,
the Russians have upped their game using social media and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So
it's a great threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence we can to the policy makers
to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect a response to this.
WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern but since this doesn't fall neatly into
any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's -- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the
Google, Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of state boards of election? How
are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for
Admiral Rogers.
COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but there's contribution from agencies across
the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us --
each of the agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT, whether it's NSA through human
or other sources will provide information to us that we want to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.
Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still assessing the impact. We have not put a grand
strategy together, which would not be our purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for
what that strategy would be.
WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to be sitting here kind of looking back
at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind
the intervention in the French elections?
ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed against the Russian -- excuse me, directed
against the French election process. As I previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French
counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what are you seeing?
I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm -- I'm not really in a position to make
a whole simple declaratory statement.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think
the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted
any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?
MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any
decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women
of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.
RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and people know this, Kaspersky Lab software
is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable
with the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?
COATS: A resounding no, from me.
POMPEO: No.
MCCABE: No, Senator.
ROGERS: No, sir.
STEWART: No, Senator.
CARDILLO: No, sir.
... ... ...
POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly, this is consistent with what -- right,
this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their
deepest tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse to U.S. interests.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.
RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the past is that the opinion of all of you
-- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election,
efforts to influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing that the Russians continue
to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.
To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and the decisions made in American politics;
particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not
simply something that happened in the past.
MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.
POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this has been going on for a long time. There's
-- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been lessened, the cost of doing it.
COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly increased the impact and the capabilities
that -- obviously this has been done for years and years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness
and -- and all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their game to the point where
it's having a significant impact.
ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access information in massive quantities that weren't
quite obtainable to the same level previously and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that
information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.
But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last presidential election cycle for us.
... ... ...
COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as perhaps we should be but I certainly
think that, given China's aggressive approach relative to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits
a -- a review of CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to address the aggressive
-- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but across the world.
They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major investment bank -- you name a park of
the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also
adding military capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that -- that you wouldn't necessarily
expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're active across the world.
Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest they have to the Indian Ocean in --
and a different way to address nations that they've had difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought
to take a look at.
... ... ...
WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is
wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey should be here this morning testifying to the American people
about where the investigation he's been running stands.
At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates
I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk
in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians
to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks.
So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks to attack our democracy, he did; that
is an established fact. The only question is whether he or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.
Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate occasions the director informed him
that he was not under investigations. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes
or no?
MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had with the president...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigation? That's not about
conversations, that's yes or no answer.
MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment on whether or not the director and
the president of the United States had that conversation.
WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone else in the White House on the status of
the investigation?
MCCABE: I will.
WYDEN: Thank you.
Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney
General Yates warned the White House that he could be blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting
attorney general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the warning?
POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.
WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global threat. This is a global threat question,
this is a global threat hearing. Were you...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: Tell me...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: Were you aware?
POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not sure I understand the question.
WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military official, that has real ramifications for
the global threat. So this is not about a policy implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail
by the Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary circumstances the CIA kept them safe.
POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...
WYDEN: So...
POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will remain committed to that. And we will...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...
WYDEN: You won't answer the question...
POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction, Senator.
WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the concerns behind the Yates warning.
POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I -- I wasn't part of any of those conversations.
I -- I... (CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: The Yates warning was...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was given.
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question, Senator...
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.
WYDEN: OK.
Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a Putin crony could end up owning a significant
percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about
this?
COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that potentially, we could provide intelligence
on in terms of what this -- what situation might be, but...
WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question in, there have been mountains of press
stories with allegations about financial connections between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant
to the FBI and my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to be laundered on its way
to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned about?
We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get
your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe, what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian
money and its potential to be laundered on its way the United States?
MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about specific investigations and certainly
not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you that those are issues that concern us greatly.
They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal the origin and the -- and the track and
the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more
obtuse, it becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light on those issues.
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?
RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman expressed is to give the American people
some insight into what we all do, which they don't see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an
observation and then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start with you Director Coats,
to volunteer.
My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate and all through the last administration.
And I have been greatly impressed by the current administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far
as their engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national media here is focused on domestic
issues which is of great interest to the American people be it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.
And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in my judgment, robust engagement with the
intelligence communities around the world and with other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And
I want -- I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real engagement in the last administration
and all the administrations are different. So Director Coats, you want to take that on to start with?
COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come with an agenda in mind in terms of
what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and
a number of things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats that exist out there need
to be -- be given attention to.
This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director Pompeo and I can certify the fact that
we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking
questions and asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the national security council, General
McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats,
how do we address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy makers in terms of how they put
a strategy in place.
And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes
exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors
to come and show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the information they provide how that
-- for the basis of making policy decisions.
I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you their impression.
RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind of sit in the same spot we all sit in
through the last several years and I kind of like your observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?
POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president everyday, briefing him with the most
urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as -- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're
doing our work in the right way.
Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the battle space in places the administration
-- the previous administration was completely absent. You all travel some too...
RISCH: Yes.
POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and they welcome American leadership. They're
not looking for American soldiers, they're not looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership
around the globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's interest very well.
RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but they come here, as you know, regularly.
POMPEO: Yes sir.
RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the first 100 days and -- and done it in
a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge
difference as far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
WARNER: Thank you Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement experience, is it -- is it your experience
that people who are innocent of wrong doing typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?
MCCABE: No sir.
HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal letter from -- earlier this week from
the president where he writes, "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But let me go to something a little more
direct.
Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director McCabe?
MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...
HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?
MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but I really don't want to go into the details
of that.
HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?
MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director Comey had -- had lost the confidence of
rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21 years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported
Director Comey?
MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the
moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running
the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.
MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable
abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell
you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.
We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe. We have a diversity of opinions about
many things, but I can confidently tell you that the majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection
to Director Comey.
HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for the existing investigations that the
-- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to follow them wherever they may lead?
MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and
I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence
threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time.
HEINRICH: Sure.
MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are covered.
HEINRICH: Thank you.
Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to provide classified information to an individual
who has been compromised by a foreign government as a broad matter.
COATS: As a broad matter, yes.
HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was compromised what -- what sort of action would
you take?
COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report this ad how it's -- how it is processed.
I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our -- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector
general and others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.
HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?
COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.
BURR: Senator Collins?
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.
Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election
last fall still in charge?
MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not who you're referring to.
COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.
MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in their positions.
COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important investigation since Director Comey was fired?
MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people experiencing questions and are reacting to
the developments this week? Absolutely.
COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation?
MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday
indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into
Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made?
MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources, we make those requests here. So I --
I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.
That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian
investigation is adequately resourced. COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding
that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent out notifying a individual that he is
a target, is that correct?
MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.
COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter sent out by the Justice Department?
MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.
COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.
MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not part of our normal case investigative
practice.
COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...
MCCABE: I see, I see...
COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of an investigation and is perhaps on the
verge of being indicted that the Justice Department sends that individual what is known as a target letter?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.
COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the answer to this question but is it standard
practice for the FBI to inform someone that they are not a target of an investigation?
MCCABE: It is not.
COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to have been a notification from the FBI
director to President Trump or anyone else involved in this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target,
is that correct?
MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have done.
COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to figure out what's standard practice and
what's not.
MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.
COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the attempted interference in the French...
ROGERS: French.
COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint claim that APT28 is the group that was
behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly
tied APT28 to Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's involvement in stealing data
that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in November.
Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior to the French election to be the result
of activities by this group, which is linked to Russian cyber activity?
ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity associated with France but as I have
said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in
the course -- particularly in the last few weeks.
To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French counterparts to inform them and make
sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?
COLLINS: Thank you.
BURR: Senator King.
KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances, we appreciate your candor in your testimony.
On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of Representative, "I have been authorized by the
Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals
associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian
efforts.
As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." Is
that statement still accurate?
MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.
KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally with the FBI, roughly?
MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.
KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest things on the plate of the FBI, is that
an accurate statement?
MCCABE: It is...
KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that you're doing?
MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.
KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged in?
MCCABE: I would not.
KING: Thank you.
Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and their involvement in this election. One
of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation
of Russian involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know about that? And is that
being up followed up on by this investigation.
Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the presidential election, I'm talking about state
level election infrastructure.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference
in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working
on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled,
I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.
So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to improve not only our coordination with
-- primarily through the Department of Homeland -- through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election
infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.
KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.
Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office. There was not any American press allowed,
was there any consultation with you with regard to that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications
in that incident?
ROGERS: No.
KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?
ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but no, not that I'm aware of.
KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew were in the Oval Office without....
ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.
KING: All right, thank you.
Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were you consulted at all with regard to
the firing of Director Comey?
COATS: I was not.
KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an important part of the intelligence community?
COATS: There were no discussions.
KING: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
BURR: Thank you Senator King.
Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director McCabe, thanks for being here as well.
Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to confirm. You have the resources you need
for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...
LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his
release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward?
MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious
way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.
LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?
MCCABE: No sir.
L.. ... ...
MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you seem to be of great interest of being
here. And we're going to look forward to really from hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think
that we'll able to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.
I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency and the morale basically starting back
from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election
such as this and did -- what did it do to the morale?
MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would develop. You know, as I said earlier
Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are
also a fiercely independent group.
MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that basically Director Comey got involved
in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale? Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?
MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our agency who were frustrated with the
outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.
MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about
Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and
people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs?
Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making sure that you have no interaction with
KL or any of the contractors you do business with? Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?
CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our systems and so I value...
MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?
CARDILLO: Absolutely.
MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be a problem?
CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.
MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I would hope that -- I'll go down the line
but I hope that all of you -- we are very much concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph)
their involvement.
CARDILLO: We share that.
MANCHIN: General?
STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky
software on our networks.
MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder to define but at this point we see no
connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting (ph)...
MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?
ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.
COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about Kaspersky and its position here. And that
continues in this new job.
POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.
MANCHIN: Great.
(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.
MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've swept all of your contractors to make sure
they understand the certainty you have, concern that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're
not involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different things because of national security.
But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't talk about them much. And when you talk
about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is
-- what are we doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have with these gangs within
our country, really every part of our country?
Anybody on the gangland?
MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our highest priorities...
MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over the country?
MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like -- much like the online pharmacy threat.
It continues to change and develop harried we think it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the
country, so we're spending a lot of time focused on that.
... ... ..
COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.
(LAUGHTER)
COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the aggressiveness with which would Russia
uses active measures or covert influence operations, propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016
and in hacking into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French election last week -- that's
one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.
These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates,
in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear
delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear range systems to Europe.
Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted a massive covert action operation, aimed
at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert
campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush, Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January
18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified
version of the public to use," end quote.
I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy
to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically, undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that
it be included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no objection, we'll include it in
the transcript.
(LAUGHTER)
Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia was using active measures and covert
influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping
with these past practices.
To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that Russia is likely using such active measures
to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts and missile defenses?
POMPEO: Yes.
COTTON: Thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two unclassified provisions that I authored. One
would be re-starting that old (inaudible) Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy officials
who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's their embassy or a consulate around the United
States.
In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from high-ranking Obama administration officials
asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending
bill.
I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our intelligence community.
Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two provisions?
COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.
COTTON: Director Pompeo?
POMPEO: None.
COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late 2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential
election.
COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to read the president's mind then and I
don't think I can read it now.
COTTON: Thank you.
I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've discussed earlier section 702.
Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to release some kind of unclassified estimate
of the number of U.S. persons who might have been incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?
ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people outside the organization.
COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental collection that have been previously unexamined?
ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the process of generating the insight violate
the actual tenets that...
(CROSSTALK)
COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect privacy rights, but to produce that
estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy rights?
ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.
COTTON: It seems hard to do.
ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the midst of a dialogue.
COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of inaccuracy or misleading information,
or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?
ROGERS: Probably not.
COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes that there is misconduct or privacy
rights are not being protected, they could, I believe under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel.
I assume you have open door policies.
ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.
COTTON: They can come to this committee.
So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe there are any abuses in the section 702
(inaudible).
MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.
COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly,
and that might make it even that much harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor
last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have program.
Thank you.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.
Senator Harris?
HARRIS: Thank you.
Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48 hours, and I appreciate your candor with
this committee during the course of this open hearing.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election?
MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight role over all of our FBI operational activity,
including that investigation.
HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the investigation?
MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to make sure they have the resources they
need and are getting the direction and the guidance they need to go forward.
HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in terms of oversight of the investigation,
in addition to your role?
MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that.
HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the investigation?
MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that investigation. He is in charge.
HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been in this role?
MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his office. He was actually in California.
So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been
fired?
MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.
HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way that we can maintain whatever information
or evidence he has in connection with the investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.
HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources.
And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources?
MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.
HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will come to us, understanding that we would
make every effort to get you what you need?
MCCABE: I absolutely will.
HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not talked with the White House about the Russia
investigation. Is that correct?
MCCABE: That's correct.
HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice about the investigation?
MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in this position.
HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women of the FBI understand that they will
not be fired if they aggressively pursue this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's -- that's working on this issue. They are
-- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they
understand and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my investigators, analysts and professionals
staff are in everything we do every day.
HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and women of the FBI have to pursue their mission.
But will you commit to me that you will directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey
has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will find a way to directly communicate with
those men and women to assure them that they will not be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Thank you.
And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI,
given the firing of Director Comey?
MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I
apologize for that.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he did. We all understand that. We expect
that he and the Justice Department will work to find a suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting
whoever that person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.
This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person get off to a great start and do what
they need to do.
HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this interim period, where we have a number
of people who are in acting positions of authority?
MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for the FBI stay focused on the threats;
stay focused on the issues that are of so much importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the
Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.
HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
BURR: Thank you.
Senator King?
Second round, five minutes each.
Senator Wyden?
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and reviewed the response that you gave to me.
And of course, what I'm concerned about is the Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by
the Russians.
And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication -- second-hand, any sense at all that
the national security adviser might be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.
POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You
have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're
a foreign intelligence organization.
And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge
of that conversation either.
WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at all?
POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security advisor.
WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American people. I mean I'm just finding it very
hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with the national security advisor.
POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor. He was present for the daily brief on
many occasions and we talked about all the topics we spoke to the President about.
WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall
every conversation with General Flynn during that time period.
WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral Rogers, let me ask you about a technical
question that I think is particularly troubling and that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department
of Homeland Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone security flaws. The report
confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time, which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated
with a signaling system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are vulnerable to these exploits,
resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions.
These vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign intelligence organizations.
Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities
and what ought to be done right now to get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a coherent
plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I
think the federal communications commission has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take
charge of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?
ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment. I share the concern the Department
of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government
to the private sector as overall responsibility here.
We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate insights about the nature of the vulnerability,
the nature of the problem. Partnering with DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology
stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created partnering with the private sector.
I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that for the record if you'd like.
WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with respect to section 702. Mr. Director,
glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role. You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how
many innocent law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an estimate of the number is in
itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have
security and liberty, that they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to be invading
peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have
a debate that shows that those of us who understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with
those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights indiscriminately swept up.
We need that number. When will we get it?
COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I promised to you that I would -- if confirmed
and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to
a specific number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time talking about that. And I
learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the -- the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant
statements as to that.
Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American people have to be made in order to determine
whether or not they breached privacy. So, it -- it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.
I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I believe in June -- as early as June to address
-- get into that issue and to address that, and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...
WYDEN: I'm...
COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe --
we are committed -- we are committed to a special meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.
But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I understand the complexity of it now and why
it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this specific number is the number.
WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and technologists say that it's possible to get the
number. If they say it, and the government is not saying it, something is really out of synch.
You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real debate about 702 that ensures that security
and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have to have that number.
"... By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that. ..."
"... ceteris paribus ..."
"... simultaneously ..."
"... private households ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... This is the night of the expanding man I take one last drag as I approach the stand I cried when I wrote this song Sue me if I play too long This brother is free I'll be what I want to be ..."
by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a terrific takedown
of the loanable funds theory, on which a ton of bad policy rests.
By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress,
income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the
Institute for New Economic Thinking website
Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that.
Introduction
Nine years after the Great Financial Crisis, U.S. output growth has not returned to its pre-recession trend, even after interest
rates hit the 'zero lower bound' (ZLB) and the unconventional monetary policy arsenal of the Federal Reserve has been all but exhausted.
It is widely feared that this insipid recovery reflects a 'new normal', characterized by "secular stagnation" which set in already
well before the global banking crisis of 2008 (Summers 2013, 2015).
This 'new normal' is characterized not just by this slowdown of aggregate economic growth, but also by greater income and wealth
inequalities and a growing polarization of employment and earnings into high-skill, high-wage and low-skill, low-wage jobs -- at
the expense of middle-class jobs (Temin 2017; Storm 2017). The slow recovery, heightened job insecurity and economic anxiety have
fueled a groundswell of popular discontent with the political establishment and made voters captive to Donald Trump's siren song
promising jobs and growth (
Ferguson and Page 2017 ).
What are the causes of secular stagnation? What are the solutions to revive growth and get the U.S. economy out of the doldrums?
If we go by four of the papers
commissioned by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at its recent symposium to explore these questions, one headline
conclusion stands out: the secular stagnation is caused by a heavy overdose of savings (relative to investment), which is caused
by higher retirement savings due to declining population growth and an ageing labour force (Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Lu
& Teulings 2017; Eggertson, Lancastre and Summers 2017), higher income inequality (Rachel & Smith 2017), and an inflow of precautionary
Asian savings (Rachel & Smith 2017). All these savings end up as deposits, or 'loanable funds' (LF), in commercial banks. In earlier
times, so the argument goes, banks would successfully channel these 'loanable funds' into productive firm investment -- by lowering
the nominal interest rate and thus inducing additional demand for investment loans.
But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when
they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in
order to invest. The result is inadequate investment and a shortage of aggregate demand in the short run, which lead to long-term
stagnation as long as the savings-investment imbalance persists. Summers (2015) regards a "chronic excess of saving over investment"
as "the essence of secular stagnation". Monetary policymakers at the Federal Reserve are in a fix, because they cannot lower the
interest rate further as it is stuck at the ZLB. Hence, forces of demography and ageing, higher inequality and thrifty Chinese savers
are putting the U.S. economy on a slow-moving turtle -- and not much can be done, it seems, to halt the resulting secular stagnation.
This is clearly a depressing conclusion, but it is also wrong.
To see this, we have to understand why there is a misplaced focus on the market for loanable funds that ignores the role of fiscal
policy that is plainly in front of us. In other words, we need to step back from the trees of dated models and see the whole forest
of our economy.
The Market for Loanable Funds
In the papers mentioned, commercial banks must first mobilise savings in order to have the loanable funds (LF) to originate new
(investment) loans or credit. Banks are therefore intermediaries between "savers" (those who provide the LF-supply) and "investors"
(firms which demand the LF). Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment
by new money. They only move it between savers and investors.
We apparently live in a non-monetary (corn) economy -- one that just exchanges a real good that everybody uses, like corn. Savings
(or LF-supply) are assumed to rise when the interest rate R goes up, whereas investment (or LF-demand) must decline when R increases.
This is the stuff of textbooks, as is illustrated by Greg Mankiw's (1997, p. 63) explanation:
In fact, saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply an demand. In this case, the 'good' is loanable funds,
and its 'price' is the interest rate. Saving is the supply of loans -- individuals lend their savings to investors, or they deposit
their saving in a bank that makes the loan for them. Investment is the demand for loanable funds -- investors borrow from the
public directly by selling bonds or indirectly by borrowing from banks. [ .] At the equilibrium interest rate, saving equals investment
and the supply of loans equals the demand.
But the loanable funds market also forms the heart of complicated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, beloved
by 'freshwater' and 'saltwater' economists alike (Woodford 2010), as should be clear from the commissioned INET papers as well. Figure
1 illustrates the loanable funds market in this scheme. The upward-sloping curve tells us that savings (or LF-supply) goes up as
the interest rate R increases. The downward-sloping curve shows us that investment (or LF-demand) declines if the cost of capital
(R) goes up. In the initial situation, the LF-market clears at a positive interest rate R0 > 0. Savings equal investment, which implies
that LF-supply matches LF-demand, and in this -- happy -- equilibrium outcome, the economy can grow along some steady-state path.
To see how we can get secular stagnation in such a loanable-funds world, we introduce a shock, say, an ageing population (a demographic
imbalance), a rise in (extreme) inequality, or an Asian savings glut, due to which the savings schedule shifts down. Equilibrium
in the new situation should occur at R1 which is negative. But this can't happen because of the ZLB: the nominal interest cannot
decline below zero. Hence R is stuck at the ZLB and savings exceed investment, or LF-supply > LF-demand. This is a disequilibrium
outcome which involves an over-supply of savings (relative to investment), in turn leading to depressed growth.
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence
upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple
diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant
Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.
The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015;
Taylor 2016
). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create
new money ex nihilo ), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with "loans" or "credit," wrong because
the empirical evidence in support of a "chronic excess of savings over investment" is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect
of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some "market-clearing" price
(the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption
that the two schedules -- the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve -- are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes
already pointed out).
Figure 1: The Loanable Funds Market: A Savings Glut Causing Secular Stagnation
I wish to briefly elaborate these six points. I understand that each of these criticisms is known and I entertain little hope
that that any of this will make people reconsider their approach, analysis, diagnosis and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important
that these criticisms are raised and not shoveled under the carpet. The problem of secular stagnation is simply too important to
be left mis-diagnosed.
First Problem: Loanable Funds Supply and Demand Are Not Independent Functions
Let me start with the point that the LF-supply and LF-demand curve are not two independent schedules. Figure 1 presents savings
and investment as functions of only the interest rate R, while keeping all other variables unchanged. The problem is that the
ceteris paribus assumption does not hold in this case. The reason is that savings and investment are both affected by, and at
the same time determined by, changes in income and (changes in) income distribution. To see how this works, let us assume that the
average propensity to save rises in response to the demographic imbalance and ageing. As a result, consumption and aggregate demand
go down. Rational firms, expecting future income to decline, will postpone or cancel planned investment projects and investment declines
(due to the negative income effect and for a given interest rate R0). This means that LF-demand curve in Figure 1 must shift downward
in response to the increased savings. The exact point was made by Keynes (1936, p. 179):
The classical theory of the rate of interest [the loanable funds theory] seems to suppose that, if the demand curve for capital
shifts or if the curve relating the rate of interest to the amounts saved out of a given income shifts or if both these curves
shift, the new rate of interest will be given by the point of intersection of the new positions of the two curves. But this is
a nonsense theory. For the assumption that income is constant is inconsistent with the assumption that these two curves can shift
independently of one another. If either of them shift, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism
based on the assumption of a given income breaks down In truth, the classical theory has not been alive to the relevance of changes
in the level of income or to the possibility of the level of income being actually a function of the rate of the investment.
Let me try to illustrate this using Figure 2. Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) rise in the average propensity to save.
In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down, but because (expected) income declines, the LF-demand schedule shifts downward as well.
The outcome could well be that there is no change in equilibrium savings and equilibrium investment. The only change is that the
'natural' interest is now R1 and equal to the ZLB. Figure 2 is, in fact, consistent with the empirical analysis (and their Figure
of global savings and investment) of Rachel & Smith. Let me be clear: Figure 2 is not intended to suggest that the loanable funds
market is useful and theoretically correct. The point I am trying to make is that income changes and autonomous demand changes are
much bigger drivers of both investment and saving decisions than the interest rate. Market clearing happens here -- as Keynes was
arguing -- because the level of economic activity and income adjust, not because of interest-rate adjustment.
Figure 2: The Loanable Funds Market: Shifts in Both Schedules
Second Problem: Savings Do Not Fund Investment, Credit Does
The loanable funds doctrine wrongly assumes that commercial bank lending is constrained by the prior availability of loanable
funds or savings. The simple point in response is that, in real life, modern banks are not just intermediaries between 'savers' and
'investors', pushing around already-existing money, but are money creating institutions. Banks create new money ex nihilo
, i.e. without prior mobilisation of savings. This is illustrated by Werner's (2014) case study of the money creation process
by one individual commercial bank. What this means is that banks do pre-finance investment, as was noted by Schumpeter early
on and later by Keynes (1939), Kaldor (1989), Kalecki, and numerous other economists. It is for this reason that Joseph Schumpeter
(1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit ( ex nihilo
) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the
name of society as it were, to form them." Nicholas Kaldor (1989, p. 179) hit the nail on its head when he wrote that "[C]redit money
has no 'supply function' in the production sense (since its costs of production are insignificant if not actually zero); it comes
into existence as a result of bank lending and is extinguished through the repayment of bank loans. At any one time the volume of
bank lending or its rate of expansion is limited only by the availability of credit-worthy borrowers." Kaldor had earlier expressed
his views on the endogeneity of money in his evidence to the Radcliffe Committee on the Workings of the Monetary System, whose report
(1959) was strongly influenced by Kaldor's argumentation. Or take Lord Adair Turner (2016, pp. 57) to whom the loanable-funds approach
is 98% fictional, as he writes:
Read an undergraduate textbook of economics, or advanced academic papers on financial intermediation, and if they describe
banks at all, it is usually as follows: "banks take deposits from households and lend money to businesses, allocating capital
between alternative capital investment possibilities." But as a description of what modern banks do, this account is largely fictional,
and it fails to capture their essential role and implications. [ ] Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ]
The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money
takes this form .
We therefore don't need savings to make possible investment -- or, in contrast to the Protestant Ethic, banks allow us to have
'gratification' even if we have not been 'thrifty' and austere, as long as there are slack resources in the economy.
It is by no means a secret that commercial banks create new money. As the Bank of England (2007) writes, "When bank make loans
they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed" (Berry et al. 2007, p. 377). Or consider the following statement
from the Deutsche Bundesbank (2009): "The commercial banks can create money themselves ." Across the board, central bank economists,
including economists working at the Bank for International Settlements (Borio and Disyatat 2011), have rejected the loanable funds
model as a wrong description of how the financial system actually works (see McLeay et al . 2014a, 2014b; Jakab and Kumhof
2015). And the Deutsche Bundesbank (2017) leaves no doubt as to how the banking system works and money is created in actually-existing
capitalism, stating that the ability of banks to originate loans does not depend on the prior availability of saving deposits. Bank
of England economists Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhoff (2015) reject the loanable-funds approach in favour of a model with money-creating
banks. In their model (as in reality), banks pre-finance investment; investment creates incomes; people save out of their incomes;
and at the end of the day, ex-post savings equal investment. This is what Jakab and Kumhoff (2015) conclude:
" . if the loan is for physical investment purposes, this new lending and money is what triggers investment and therefore,
by the national accounts identity of saving and investment (for closed economies), saving. Saving is therefore a consequence,
not a cause, of such lending. Saving does not finance investment, financing does. To argue otherwise confuses the respective macroeconomic
roles of resources (saving) and debt-based money (financing)."
Savings are a consequence of credit-financed investment (rather than a prior condition) -- and we cannot draw
a savings-investment cross as in Figure 1, as if the two curves are independent. They are not. There exists therefore no
'loanable funds market' in which scarce savings constrain (through interest rate adjustments) the demand for investment loans. Highlighting
the loanable funds fallacy, Keynes wrote in "The Process of Capital Formation" (1939):
"Increased investment will always be accompanied by increased saving, but it can never be preceded by it. Dishoarding and credit
expansion provides not an alternative to increased saving, but a necessary preparation for it. It is the parent, not the twin,
of increased saving."
This makes it all the more remarkable that some of the authors of the commissioned conference papers continue to frame their analysis
in terms of the discredited loanable funds market which wrongly assumes that savings have an existence of their own -- separate from
investment, the level of economic activity and the distribution of incomes.
Third Problem: The Interest Rate Is a Monetary Policy Instrument, Not a Market-Clearing Price
In loanable funds theory, the interest rate is a market price, determined by LF-supply and LF-demand (as in Figure 1). In reality,
central bankers use the interest rate as their principal policy instrument (Storm and Naastepad 2012). It takes effort and a considerable
amount of sophistry to match the loanable funds theory and the usage of the interest rate as a policy instrument. However, once one
acknowledges the empirical fact that commercial banks create money ex nihilo , which means money supply is endogenous, the
model of an interest-rate clearing loanable funds market becomes untenable. Or as Bank of England economists Jakab and Kumhof (2015)
argue:
modern central banks target interest rates, and are committed to supplying as many reserves (and cash) as banks demand at that
rate, in order to safeguard financial stability. The quantity of reserves is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of lending
and money creation. This view concerning central bank reserves [ ] has been repeatedly described in publications of the world's
leading central banks.
What this means is that the interest rate may well be at the ZLB, but this is not caused by a savings glut in the loanable funds
market, but the result of a deliberate policy decision by the Federal Reserve -- in an attempt to revive sluggish demand in a context
of stagnation, subdued wage growth, weak or no inflation, substantial hidden un- and underemployment, and actual recorded unemployment
being (much) higher than the NAIRU (see Storm and Naastepad 2012). Seen this way, the savings glut is the symptom (or
consequence ) of an aggregate demand shortage which has its roots in the permanent suppression of wage growth (relative
to labour productivity growth), the falling share of wages in income, the rising inequalities of income and wealth (Taylor 2017)
as well as the financialization of corporations (Lazonick 2017) and the economy as a whole (Storm 2018). It is not the cause of the
secular stagnation -- unlike in the loanable funds models.
Fourth Problem: The Manifest Absence of Finance and Financial Markets
What the various commissioned conference papers do not acknowledge is that the increase in savings (mostly due to heightened inequality
and financialization) is not channeled into higher real-economy investment, but is actually channeled into more lucrative financial
(derivative) markets. Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity and IMF economists
have documented the growth of global institutional cash pools, now worth $5 to 6 trillion and managed by asset or money managers
in the shadow banking system (Pozsar 2011; Pozsar and Singh 2011; Pozsar 2015). Today's global economy is suffering from an unprecedented
"liquidity preference" -- with the cash safely "parked" in short-term (over-collateralized lending deals in the repo-market. The
liquidity is used to earn a quick buck in all kinds of OTC derivatives trading, including forex swaps, options and interest rate
swaps. The global savings glut is the same thing as the global overabundance of liquidity (partying around in financial markets)
and also the same thing as the global demand shortage -- that is: the lack of investment in real economic activity, R&D and innovation.
The low interest rate is important in this context, because it has dramatically lowered the opportunity cost of holding cash --
thus encouraging (financial) firms, the rentiers and the super-rich to hold on to their liquidity and make (quick and relatively
safe and high) returns in financial markets and exotic financial instruments. Added to this, we have to acknowledge the fact that
highly-leveraged firms are paying out most of their profits to shareholders as dividends or using it to buy back shares (Lazonick
2017). This has turned out to be damaging to real investment and innovation, and it has added further fuel to financialization (Epstein
2018; Storm 2018). If anything, firms have stopped using their savings (or retained profits) to finance their investments which are
now financed by bank loans and higher leverage. If we acknowledge these roles of finance and financial markets, then we can begin
to understand why investment is depressed and why there is an aggregate demand shortage. More than two decades of financial deregulation
have created a rentiers' delight, a capitalism without 'compulsions' on financial investors, banks, and the property-owning class
which in practice has led to 'capitalism for the 99%' and 'socialism for the 1%' (Palma 2009; Epstein 2018) For authentic Keynesians,
this financialized system is the exact opposite of Keynes' advice to go for the euthanasia of the rentiers ( i.e. design
policies to reduce the excess liquidity).
Fifth Problem: Confusing Savings with "Loans," or Stocks with Flows
"I have found out what economics is,' Michał Kalecki once told Joan Robinson, "it is the science of confusing stocks with flows."
If anything, Kalecki's comment applies to the loanable funds model. In the loanable fund universe, as Mankiw writes and as most commissioned
conference papers argue, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand at some equilibrium interest rate. But
savings and investment are flow variables, whereas the supply of loans and the demand for loans are stock variables.
Simply equating these flows to the corresponding stocks is not considered good practice in stock-flow-consistent macro-economic modelling.
It is incongruous, because even if we assume that the interest rate does clear "the stock of loan supply" and "the stock of loan
demand", there is no reason why the same interest rate would simultaneously balance savings ( i.e. the increase
in loan supply) and investment ( i.e. the increase in loan demand). So what is the theoretical rationale of assuming that
some interest rate is clearing the loanable funds market (which is defined in terms of flows )?
To illustrate the difference between stocks and flows: the stock of U.S. loans equals around 350% of U.S. GDP (if one includes
debts of financial firms), while gross savings amount to 17% of U.S. GDP. Lance Taylor (2016) presents the basic macroeconomic flows
and stocks for the U.S. economy to show how and why loanable funds macro models do not fit the data -- by a big margin. No interest
rate adjustment mechanism is strong enough to bring about this (ex-post) balance in terms of flows , because the interest
rate determination is overwhelmed by changes in loan supply and demand stocks . What is more, and as stated before, we don't
actually use 'savings' to fund 'investment'. Firms do not use retained profits (or corporate savings) to finance their investment,
but in actual fact disgorge the cash to shareholders (Lazonick 2017). They finance their investment by bank loans (which is newly
minted money). Households use their (accumulated) savings to buy bonds in the secondary market or any other existing asset. In that
case, the savings do not go to funding new investment -- but are merely used to re-arrange the composition of the financial portfolio
of the savers.
Final Problem: The Evidence of a Chronic Excess of Savings Over Investment is Missing
If Summers claims that there is a "chronic excess of savings over investment," what he means is that ex-ante savings are larger
than ex-ante investment. This is a difficult proposition to empirically falsify, because we only have ex-post (national accounting)
data on savings and investment which presume the two variables are equal. However, what we can do is consider data on (global) gross
and net savings rates (as a proportion of GDP) to see if the propensity to save has increased. This is what Bofinger and Ries (2017)
did and they find that global saving rates of private households have declined dramatically since the 1980s. This means,
they write, that one can rule out 'excess savings' due to demographic factors (as per Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017;
Eggertsson, Lancastre & Summers 2017; Rachel & Smith 2017; and Lu & Teulings 2017). While the average saving propensity of household
has declined, the aggregate propensity to save has basically stayed the same during the period 1985-2014. This is shown in Figure
3 (reproduced from Bofinger and Reis 2017) which plots the ratio of global gross savings (or global gross investment) to GDP against
the world real interest rate during 1985-2014. A similar figure can be found in the paper by Rachel and Smith (2017). What can be
seen is that while there has been no secular rise in the average global propensity to save, there has been a secular decline in interest
rates. This drop in interest rates to the ZLB is not caused by a savings glut, nor by a financing glut, but is the outcome of the
deliberate decisions of central banks to lower the policy rate in the face of stagnating economies, put on a 'slow-moving turtle'
by a structural lack of aggregate demand which -- as argued by Storm and Naastepad (2012) and Storm (2017) -- is largely due to misconceived
macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation.
Saving/Investment Equilibria and World Real Interest Rate, 1985-2014 Source: Bofinger and Reis (2017), Figure
1(a).
To understand the mechanisms underlying Figure 3, let us consider Figure 4 which plots investment demand as a negative function
of the interest rate. In the 'old situation', investment demand is high at a (relatively) high rate of interest (R0); this corresponds
to the data points for the period 1985-1995 in Figure 3. But then misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing
wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation began to depress aggregate demand and investment -- and as a result,
the investment demand schedule starts to shift down and to become more steeply downward-sloping at the same time. In response to
the growth slowdown (and weakening inflationary pressure), central banks reduce R -- but without any success in raising the gross
investment rate. This process continues until the interest rate hits the ZLB while investment has become practically interest-rate
insensitive, as investment is now overwhelmingly determined by pessimistic profit expectations; this is indicated by the new investment
schedule (in red). That the economy is now stuck at the ZLB is not caused by a "chronic excess of savings" but rather by a chronic
shortage of aggregate demand -- a shortage created by decades of wage growth moderation, labour market flexibilization, and heightened
job insecurity as well as the financialization of corporations and the economy at large (Storm 2018).
Figure 4: Secular Stagnation As a Crisis of Weak Investment Demand
Conclusions
The consensus in the literature and in the commissioned conference papers that the global decline in real interest rates is caused
by a higher propensity to save, above all due to demographic reasons, is wrong in terms of underlying theory and evidence base. The
decline in interest rates is the monetary policy response to stalling investment and growth, both caused by a shortage of global
demand. However, the low interest rates are unable to revive growth and halt the secular stagnation, because there is little reason
for firms to expand productive capacity in the face of the persistent aggregate demand shortage. Unless we revive demand, for example
through debt-financed fiscal stimulus or a drastic and permanent progressive redistribution of income and wealth in favour of lower-income
groups (Taylor 2017), there is no escape from secular stagnation. The narrow focus on the ZLB and powerless monetary policy within
the framing of a loanable-funds financial system blocks out serious macroeconomic policy debate on how to revive aggregate demand
in a sustainable manner. It will keep the U.S. economy on the slow-moving turtle -- not because policymakers cannot do anything about
it, but we choose to do so. The economic, social and political damage, fully self-inflicted, is going to be of historic proportions.
It is not a secret that the loanable funds approach is fallacious (Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). While academic
economists continue to refine their Ptolemaic model of a loanable-funds market, central bank economists have moved on -- and are
now exploring the scope of and limitations to monetary policymaking in a monetary economy. Keynes famously wrote that "Practical
men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." In
2017, things seem to happen the other way around: academic economists who believe themselves to be free thinkers are caught in the
stale theorizing of a century past. The puzzle is, as Lance Taylor (2016, p. 15) concludes "why [New Keynesian economists] revert
to Wicksell on loanable funds and the natural rate while ignoring Keynes's innovations. Maybe, as [Keynes] said in the preface to
the General Theory, "'The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones ..' (p. viii)"
Due to our inability to free ourselves from the discredited loanable funds doctrine, we have lost the forest for the trees. We
cannot see that the solution to the real problem underlying secular stagnation (a structural shortage of aggregate demand) is by
no means difficult: use fiscal policy -- a package of spending on infrastructure, green energy systems, public transportation and
public services, and progressive income taxation -- and raise (median) wages. The stagnation will soon be over, relegating all the
scholastic talk about the ZLB to the dustbin of a Christmas past.
"Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that."
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"? Or is Keynes so out of favor that this is outre
thinking?
The point is that the "saving glut" is caused bi unequal distribution of income, so it's a good thing that the "shortage of
aggregate demand" is stressed, but still it's just two names for the same thing.
In the end the "money creation" is needed because there is not a "money circulation", IMO.
Putting money into the broadest possible distribution and circulation is the key. It could be done with existing money through
taxation or with new money through the federal fiscal lever.
Given the "Tax Reform" just passed, odds on the first option look vanishingly long. The second option is what the elites do
whenever they want something, normally a war or tax cut. If they want a robust economy, eventually they will pull the fiscal lever.
Feudalism, however, may look better to our depraved current elite crop than any kind of broadly robust economy.
There was a link to an article yesterday called "I write because I hate" that described how incorrect and even dangerous metaphors
can be when it comes to understanding the world. Yours is a case in point.
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"
I'm not sure I entirely understand your complaint, but at a first glance a savings glut is one kind of demand shortage, but
not every kind of demand shortage can reasonably be called a savings glut. In one situation you have plenty of resource but no
use for it other than possible future use (savings glut -- you have everything you need so cease purchasing) and in another situation
you have insufficient resource (demand shortage -- you cease purchasing because you can't afford to purchase) but no savings glut.
You don't even have the resources you need for today, never mind saving for tomorrow.
Aye, that's exactly how I understand it, so it is not exactly a chicken-or-the-egg conflation to try to distinguish a savings
glut from a lack of demand.
You seem to have missed the point. The problem is wealth distribution. Mainstream economists don't distinguish who has the
savings in their simplistic models. When the rich already have a widget in every room of their mansion, they are not going to
buy more widgets no matter how low the price of widgets sink. And when the poor have no money, they will not be able to buy the
widgets no matter how much they want them. Demand is not just a function of price. To increase demand, we need a more equitable
form of wealth distribution.
One major difference, according to the author, is that the lack of aggregate demand exists, while the savings glut does not.
The fact of companies sitting on liquidity, is detached from investment, for which they borrow. That investment is lacking because
they do not see good investments, because of a lack of aggregate demand. if they did invest, it would not be constrained
by their 'savings'.
"But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even
when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow
more in order to invest."
That needs some explanation. Banks are not offering US businesses free money (excerpt briefly during the Crash). BBB bonds
yields are aprox 4.3% -- and most businesses cannot borrow at that rate (excerpt when posting collateral).
For comparison over long time horizons, the real (ex-CPI) BBB corporate bond rate is 2.5% to 3% -- in the middle of its range
from 1952-1980.
We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending.
But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full
employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.
Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The
social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would
grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits
would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage
rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices,
and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more
appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from
their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.
In other words, one potential reason for business to oppose any efforts at addressing the problem is that the people would
have more bargaining power. The elite are not after absolute wealth or power, but relative power over the rest of us.
Imagine for example if the alternative was passed say some form of social democracy with full employment and MMT policy.
This would undermine in their view their ability to dominate over the rest of us. Now they may arguably be richer (ex: we might
see more money for productive parts of society like say, disease research), but they are willing to give that up for dominating
us. That is what we are up against.
If what you say is true (re social democracy + MMT policies), how then to consider for even one second the further existence
of a business cadre dedicated to upending such an agreement? We always theorize as if an actual resistance to "our" policies will
melt away with the displacement of elite political control. I remember Chile and the "strikes" called to bring down Allende.
The innocence of our imaginations is not only disturbing, but dangerous. Once power is gained and capital has been put in its
place, the fight begins right there, anew. Unless we wish to fall into Stalinist methods of "resolution", consideration for alternate
methods of economic control, and an anticipation of backlash, are in demand if the "people" are to prevail.
In my experience as a union organizer and negotiator the opposition by many employers to unions is not particularily because
of money, but because of power and the erosion of the employer's grip of it by the collective action of workers. Many times in
my experience employers have spent a boatload more money on fighting workers and hiring union-busting attorneys than whatever
wage and benefit increase is being proposed. These employers are acting from their political self-interest rather than the narrow
economic self-interest that is commonly assumed.
Great comments -- the motivation behind the ideas is a need for power and control.
You can look at the first 20 years of the Cold War as a domestic experiment in social control: incomes were allowed to rise
for most people, and inequality was moderated in the interest of politically consolidating the country to support arming and fighting
the war.
By the early 70s our handlers -- as shown in the Powell Memo, say -- had tired of the experiment. With more income, free time,
and education, women, students, non-white people, and the newly prosperous working class were entering into contention on every
terrain imaginable -- and that had to reduced to a manageable level. So they "leaned-out the mix", reduced income for most people,
and bumped up the level of indebtedness and indoctrination.
Now the fuel-air mix is so lean that the engine is starting to miss (for example, the Trump election and the Sanders challenge
to the Dem elite). But it looks like they have no other idea but to double-down on austerity. I guess they assume they can maintain
global financial and military hegemony on the backs of a sick, unfit, indebted, and politically fractious population -- an iffy
proposition. No wonder they seem desperate.
The Trump/Republican tax law tells us (if we needed another message) that the link between economic policy and economic theory
is so weak as the bring into question the point of theorizing in the first place, apart, of course, from convincing (semi)-smart
but fearful people to remain timid in the face of powerful lunacy. Government spending to replace worn out capital, to satisfy
basic material needs of the population, and to underwrite investment in an environmental and educational future worth creating
is, OBVIOUSLY, a no-no to Wall Street, war profiteers, and the large population of yes-men and women who promote fear among the
middle class. We should spend less time contesting economic thinking that is nonsense. Instead why not spend time proposing and
explaining fairly obvious fiscal strategies that will promote a better society, as well as the time that will be needed to defend
these life-affirming proposals against the scholastic nonsense that our saltwater and freshwater scaredy-cat friends will put
out every day to explain why what we propose will wreck Civilization. Let's go on the offense for a change.
precisely, but for the forementioned scholastic nonsense of our salty and fresh feline friends, one would need a salient and
orchestrated defense, as to why such meddling with traditional economic trajectories, will mean that: by foregoing my 'short sided
2018 increase in my personal deduction', will I actually allow myself to feel benign about the sagging state of civilization,
that those 'cats of all breeds', have so eloquently perpetuated upon a 'generation of our peers'.
calling 'message central', the 'greater good awaits'. Yes
I still can't get my head around the fact that these models can persist in the economics literature whilst everyone knows they
are based on flawed assumptions. In science these would quickly end up as part of some distant history. Someone would publish
another model, and slowly everyone would start working with it if it had strong explanatory power. Imagine the grief that climate
modellers would get if theirs models were so poorly grounded.
Thank you for this post. It was as good as Michael Hudson and all the clear thinkers you post for us. Since we got rid of Greenspan
(who admitted that interest rates had no effect on the economy but still freaked out about inflaltion), Bernanke and then Yellen
have had better instincts not straightforward, but better. If central banks know the loanable funds theory to be nonsense, the
battle is mostly won. MMT will be the logical next step. Public spending/infrastructure is just good grassroots policy that serve
everyone. Even dithering goofballs like Larry Summers. And, as implied above, public spending takes care of the always ignored
problem of private debt levels which suck productive spending and investment out of the economy, because unemployment. It's hard
to believe that academics have been so wrong-headed for so long without any evidence for their claims. Steve Keen's premise, that
these academics ignore both the existence of private debt and the importance of dwindling energy sources is also addressed above.
Storm's point also made by both old hands and new MMT that there is not a problem with inflation (too much) if there are slack
resources seems to have morphed into an ossified rule whereby some inflexible academics see slack resources as scarce resources.
What is slack is always a political definition. What is slack today is a filthy environment; there is a great surplus of it. Enormously
slack. That's the good news.
Globalization is a disaster wherever you care to look.
Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity . . .
A better example is Apple, with it's roughly 1/4 trillion dollar cash hoard, beaten out of their Chinese work force in collusion
of the Chinese elite. With wages crushed here and there, because they don't want to pay anyone anything anywhere, where will demand
come from? The Chinese peasant slaving away on an Apple farm has a few square feet of living space, like a broiler chicken in
a Tyson cage so where is she going to put the new furniture she can't afford?
Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies
is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .
The banks are the MMT practicing intermediary between the federal government and the peasants.
So much goodness, don't know where to start. It's a long post. It's my day (singular) off. I'm going long. Deacon Blues* applies.
This:
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong
influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible
form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift'
and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path
to bliss.
Now we're talking. This puts the doctrine in the context of its parent beliefs.
The way I see it, beliefs:economics as operating system:application as mythology:religion. So shorter Storm: The LFF is a BS
application for a BS OS.
Been dawning on me lately how neoliberalism is the spawn of a degenerate parent belief system, too. I was even thinking of
Weber just the other day.
By speaking in apparently objective, pragmatic, "realistic" terms, public figures are notorious for "dog-whistling" their occult
beliefs in terms their congregations hear loud and clear. When Her Royal Clinton's even more notoriously damned to hell half the
population as "deplorables," she tipped her hand. The obscure term, ephors, is very instructive here.
To refesh the readers memory, "Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy'
-- someone who by creating credit (ex nihilo) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of
new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them."
Not so fast, though. Who were the original ephors?
Herodotus claimed that the institution was created by Lycurgus, while Plutarch considers it a later institution. It may
have arisen from the need for governors while the kings were leading armies in battle. The ephors were elected by the popular
assembly, and all citizens were eligible for election. They were forbidden to be reelected. They provided a balance for the
two kings, who rarely cooperated with each other. Plato called them tyrants who ran Sparta as despots, while the kings were
little more than generals. Up to two ephors would accompany a king on extended military campaigns as a sign of control, and
they held the authority to declare war during some periods in Spartan history.[2]
According to Plutarch,[3] every autumn, at the crypteia, the ephors would pro forma declare war on the helot population
so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt.[4] This was done to keep the large helot population
in check.
The ephors did not have to kneel down before the Kings of Sparta and were held in high esteem by the citizens, because of
the importance of their powers and because of the holy role they earned throughout their functions.
Ain't that something. We don't call it "class war" for nothing. More on the crypteia:
The Crypteia or Krypteia (Greek: κρυπτεία krupteνa from κρυπτός kruptσs, "hidden, secret things") was an ancient Spartan
state institution involving young Spartan men. Its goal and nature are still a matter of discussion and debate among historians,
but some scholars (Wallon) consider the Krypteia to be a kind of secret police and state security force organized by the ruling
classes of Sparta, whose purpose was to terrorize the servile helot population. Others (Kφchly, Wachsmuth) believe it to be
a form of military training, similar to the Athenian ephebia.
So Schumpeter's metaphor is way too apt for comfort. Gets right under my skin.
For a modern equivalent of the pro forma declaration of civil war, I'm thinking "election cycle." Hippie-punching and
all that goes a long way back, eh?
Let's cut to the chase: what's all this talk of econ as religion telling us? ISTM arguing with neoliberals as they frame the
debate is like arguing with theologians in their terms. My learning psych professor, Robert Bolles, regarding the dismantling
of ascendant BS models, always said, you don't take down an enormous tree leaf by leaf, you go where it meets the ground. Where
does neoliberalism meet the ground? And its parent belief system?
Neoliberalism is so poorly grounded, it's shorting out all over the place. This could be easier than it looks. Storm's argument
is compelling (at least to this newbie). What are its other weakest links? (Not being rhetorical here. I really don't know. A
little help?)
Speaking of Weber, one of the major factors in the Reformation was the utter failure of the Catholic church to be able to produce
a valid calendar
. The trouble is of course, in their mythos, you have to perform the proper rituals at the proper time and often in the proper
place, or you will fry in hell forever and ever amen.
Obviously, then, the calculation of the equinox assumed considerable and understandable importance. If the equinox was wrong,
then Easter was celebrated on the wrong day and the placement of most of the other observances -- such as the starts of Lent
and Pentecost -- would also be in error.
As the Julian calendar was far from perfect, errors did indeed begin to creep into the keeping of time. Because of the inherent
imprecision of the calendar, the calculated year was too long by 11 minutes and 14 seconds. The problem only grew worse with
each passing year as the equinox slipped backwards one full day on the calendar every 130 years. For example, at the time of
its introduction, the Julian calendar placed the equinox on March 25. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the equinox
had fallen back to March 21. By 1500, the equinox had shifted by 10 days.
The 10 days were of increasing importance also to navigation and agriculture, causing severe problems for sailors, merchants,
and farmers whose livelihood depended upon precise measurements of time and the seasons. At the same time, throughout the Middle
Ages, the use of the Julian calendar brought with it many local variations and peculiarities that are the constant source of
frustration to historians. For example, many medieval ecclesiastical records, financial transactions, and the counting of dates
from the feast days of saints did not adhere to the standard Julian calendar but reflected local adjustments. Not surprisingly,
confusion was the result.
The Church Saves Time
[Doncha just love that succinct bit of myth-making? smh]
The Church was aware of the inaccuracy, and by the end of the 15th century there was widespread agreement among Church leaders
that not celebrating Easter on the right day -- the most important and most solemn event on the calendar -- was a scandal.
A functioning mythology tells one how to be human right now. The Catholic church couldn't even tell people what date it was,
putting not just ephemeral souls in peril should one die, even more of a daily dread in those days, but lives and property were
increasingly at risk.
ISTM we're in an analogous situation. Our two high holies, Wall Street and Washington, DC, are increasingly irrelevant to us
helots. They're of no use to us in ordering our daily lives. In fact, they've becoming openly hostile, dropping any pretense of
governing for the common good, and I'm not referring only to Trump, eg, whatever happened to habeas corpus ? "If you like
your health plan, you can keep it." The betrayals come fast and furious, too fast to keep up.
Others are rejecting science. A schism here, a schism there, pretty soon it all cracks up one day "outta nowhere." And I do
mean "one day."
Moving right along, let's look at "the virtue of thrift."
In the formative years of United States history, prominent thinkers such as Ben Franklin promoted a "thrift ethic" that
encouraged hard work, frugal spending on self and generous giving to charity, he asserted, maintaining "thrift" was simply
the secular term for the religious stewardship principle . And institutions developed to support that ethic, he noted.
That's what I'm saying: secular institutions are the operationalizations, the applications, of belief systems, and further,
we can study them instead of just saying "religion = bad = no further analysis required" and then dismissing it all out of hand.
As with LF-supply and LF-demand, secular and sectarian are not the independent variables they're made out to be, as argued
so well by Cook & Ferguson right here on NC in The
Real Economic Consequences of Martin Luther , eg, "[Henry VIII] did not abolish the papacy so much as take the pope's place."
Same goes for today, IMNSHO: Our "secular" leaders are sectarian high priests in mufti.
The Baptist article also goes on to say what the flock people should do: ignore Wall St. and DC. Unsuprisingly, it's also chock
full of punching downwards and victim-blaming. Payday lending and lotteries are to blame, they say. People just need to be more
thrifty , which apparently means, impoverish yourself for the betterment of your betters. Or else.
When HRC damned half of us to Hell, she was dog-whistling loud and clear in a tradition going at least as far back as the wars
of the ephors on the helots. When the high priests of our high holy temples of finance tell us we need more austerity, although
they speak in terms apparently objective and especially dispassionate, it's nothing but the failed preachings of the failed priests
of a failed church.
Looked at as comparative mythology, and speaking empirically as well (much obliged to the present author and our hosts, sincerely)
neoliberalism is no way of being human.
Sure, us nerds get that. But wonky discussions don't move people. The execrable Mario Cuomo is credited with saying, "You campaign
in poetry, you govern in prose," and I think it's profoundly true. Telling my friends we've debunked the Loanable Funds Fallacy
will get me nowhere.
Oy vey. The immense satisfaction I had been feeling, of seeing through neoliberalism all the way to its core, sure was short
lived. Now I need to know what MMT says about being human. This is what happens when you start thinking in words, you know. It
never ends!
I've heard Steve Keen's writing won't be much help in popularizing MMT in time. Who's a witty MMTer? Who can express its way
of being human in one-liners? Who's punchy?
(Administrivia: "Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) *rise* in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply
curve shifts down ." Shouldn't that be "drop"?)
* This is the night of the expanding man
I take one last drag as I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be
Very interesting rant, Knowbuddhau. Imo all we have to do is get over gold. It made sense before the days of sovereign fiat
that you saved your coins before you spent them. How else? But fiat is the essential spirit of money while gold was/is a craze.
And the Neoliberals are unenlightened just like the Neocons against whom they pretend to react. But they are reactionaries regardless.
That's their problem. All reaction, no action. When Storm refers to Kalecki above saying the original sin of economics was confusing
stocks with flows, I take it to mean confusing fiat with gold in a sense. Once upon a time a store of value (a pouch full of gold
coins) was the same thing as a medium of exchange. Not any more. Fiat is the only mechanism, spent in advance to promote social
well being, that can create an "economy" in this world of zillions of people.
Isn't a bit of an irony that the academic papers being debunked here were commissioned by the Institute for *New* Economic
Thinking ? Sad to see its also been corrupted by the neoliberal virus (political Ebola).
The author writes about the fuctional LF paradigm: "Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot
pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors." -- Note that that narrative doesn't
even make sense *within* the loanable-funds model, because with fractional reserve banking, even if banks were required to loan
against pre-existing deposits, they could amplify each dollar of same into multiple units of newly-created credit money. The fact
that what really happens goes even further and entirely omits the need for pre-existing funds from the banks' monetary legerdemain
is the reason for my pet term for the "loans create deposits" reality: "fictional reserve banking."
Aggregate demand increases investment only to the extant that it increases profitable opportunities. If costs remain constant,
then obviously an increase in demand increases profitability. But an increase in wages doesn't merely increase aggregate demand,
it also increases aggregate costs because that's what a wage is to a firm. If aggregate wages were boosted by $1 trillion, consumption
will be boosted by less than 100% of that (workers will save some of their increased income) while firms will have to pay the
full $1 trillion in increased wages if they are to employ the workers. So how is increasing wages supposed to increase profitability
and investment? It seems like it would do the opposite.
We really need to look more at profit. The aggregate profit rate is determined by the cost of the total capital employed in
relation to the output. If the costs rise faster than productivity growth, then profitability falls. How do aggregate costs rise?
By capital accumulation, by an increase in savings and investment. Thus, it would seem that stagnation can only be reached if
too much capital has been accumulated without a corresponding increase in productivity. This hypothesis doesn't rely on the loanable
funds theory (it doesn't matter whether the money exists before it is spent), but it is more similar to the savings glut explanation
because it is the accumulation of capital that leads to the fall in profitability. The suppression of wages is an effect, an attempt
to create profitable opportunities when there are none.
Your model is correct when you limit yourself to the variables in your model. Real life economies are complex, dynamic interactions
of many variables. At different times some variable become more important than others.
I think your variable, capital accumulation, is itself a complicated mix of many variables. Sometimes the cost of "capital
accumulation" may be controlling, and sometimes not. It also depends on which variables within capital accumulation are having
the most impact.
I think one of the major problems of the theory of supply and demand is that it may be true as a static model (all other things
being equal), but the economy (and life) are not static. Unless you can take dynamic effects into account, then this static or
even quasi-static model will just not represent what actually happens. This is just another way of saying what this article says.
Over time, the supply curve and the demand curve interact. There is hardly, if any, point in time when all other things aren't
changing.
In my world of simulating the behavior of integrated circuits, the problem involves non-linear differential equations, not
just non-linear algebraic equations.
Here is another problem. " by the national accounts[,] identity of saving and investment (for closed economies),"
Accounting is also a static snapshot of a dynamic system. A bank creates a loan payable in let's say 30 years. The spending
occurs immediately. In accounting terms these two items balance. However, on impact on the economy, they do not balance. Why else
would capitalism have noticed the value of buy now, pay later?
This is no longer a chicken and egg problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In real life, there are lots of chickens
and lots of eggs. Which came first is irrelevant. Chickens create eggs and eggs create chickens.
Models are a simplification of reality. They apply best when the things that were simplified away don't matter much. They fail
when the things that were simplified away become important. So, when does the loanable funds model apply?
IMHO, the loanable funds model applies when there is a run on the bank. When the fractional reserve banking system is running
smoothly, the loanable funds model is irrelevant. That's why banks have reserves and monetary systems have central reserve banks.
These reserve systems let us ignore loanable funds models.
Now we can view Brennan testimony throw the prism of Steele dossier scandal and Strzok-gate
(with whom he who probably has direct contacts)
Please note that the interview was given directly after the appointment of the Special
Prosecutor Mueller and at this time many though that Trump was "fully cooked" and that neocon and
neoliberal swamp in Washington managed to consume him.
Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Russia
"brazenly interfered in the 2016 election process," despite U.S. efforts to warn it off.
Brennan testified in an open session of the committee, one of a handful of congressional
committees now investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Brennan said he told his Russian counterpart, the head of Russia's FSB, last August that if
Russia pursued its efforts to interfere, "it would destroy any near-term prospect for
improvement in relations" between the two countries. He said Russia denied any attempts to
interfere.
In his opening statement, Brennan also recounted how he had briefed congressional leaders in
August of last year, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees about the "full details" of what he knew of Russia's interference in the 2016
election. Brennan said he became convinced last summer that Russia was trying to interfere in
the campaign, saying "they were very aggressive."
Brennan said he is "aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and
interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign."
Brennan said that concerned him, "because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,"
and that it raised questions about whether or not the Russians "were able to gain the
cooperation of those individuals." Brennan added he didn't know if "collusion existed" between
the Russians and those he identified as involved in the Trump campaign.
While Brennan would not specifically identify any individuals associated with the Trump
campaign who had contacts with Russian officials and would not opine as to whether there was
any collusion or collaboration, he did tell lawmakers why he was concerned about the contacts
occurring against the general background of Russian efforts to meddle in the election. Brennan
said he's studied Russian intelligence activities over the years, and how Russian intelligence
services have been able to get people to betray their country. "Frequently, individuals on a
treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he
said.
Brennan said Russia was motivated to back Donald Trump in the presidential election because
of a "traditional animus" between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Russian President
Vladimir Putin. He told committee members there had not been a good relationship between Putin
and the Clintons over the years. What's more, Brennan said Putin blamed Hillary Clinton's
actions as secretary of state during the Obama administration for domestic disturbances inside
Russia. He said Putin was concerned Clinton would be more "rigid" on issues such as human
rights if elected president.
But Brennan told the committee he believed that Russia anticipated that Clinton would be the
likely winner of the presidential race, and that Russia tried to "damage and bloody" her before
Election Day. Had she won, Brennan said, Russia would have continued to attempt to "denigrate
her and hurt her" during her presidency. If Russia had collected more information about Clinton
that they did not use against her during the campaign, Brennan said they were likely
"husbanding it for another day."
On another question, Brennan criticized President Trump's reported sharing of classified
intelligence with Russia officials. Brennan said if reports were accurate, Trump violated
"protocols" by sharing the information with Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the
U.S.
Brennan also said he was "very concerned" by the release of what he said appears to be
classified information from the Trump administration. He said there appear to be "very, very
damaging leaks, and I find them appalling and they need to be tracked down."
Reacting to Brennan's testimony, a White House spokesman said "This morning's hearings back
up what we've been saying all along: that despite a year of investigation, there is still no
evidence of any Russia-Trump campaign collusion, that the President never jeopardized
intelligence sources or sharing, and that even Obama's CIA Director believes the leaks of
classified information are 'appalling' and the culprits must be 'tracked down.'"
Under questioning from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Brennan said the Russians have been
trying to disrupt Western elections since the 1960s, and that they've quickly adapted to the
times. Brennan pointed to the ease with which Russia was able to hack Democratic operatives'
emails, which were then published on WikiLeaks.
"The cyber-environment now really provides so much more opportunity for troublemaking and
the Russians take advantage of it," he said. Brennan said the use of spear phishing, and
"whatever else so that they can then gain access to people's emails, computer systems
networks," is something that the Russians are adept at.
He said Russia used WikiLeaks as a "cut-out," or go-between, and that protests by WikiLeaks
that it is not working with Russia and Russia's claims it is not working with WikiLeaks are
"disingenuous."
The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from
the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in
case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials
against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose
legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words
did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens,
especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly
political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly
persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
The Washington Post and a number
of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA
Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post
headlined a front page featured article with
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it
was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New
York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the
British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at
least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan
unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and
elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.
But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just
speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what
Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his
campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn
such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those
individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of
others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they
do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the
case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he
knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the
Americans and British, do so aggressively.
At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in
my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved
in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents
voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.
It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented
meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the
purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do
things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and
acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things
about today's CIA
Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the
Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if
they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in
question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to
open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia
was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense.
In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly
everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the
outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia
was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has
been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly
everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly
lacking in any actual evidence.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just
one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its
front page with a piece entitled Top
Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on
anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American
spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and
political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his
advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly
focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had
established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.
The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials
actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there
is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan
and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the
phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an
observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous
sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers
do?
It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United
States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places
including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point
of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem
when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even
if it almost never has that result.
How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John
Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its
highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not
a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into
government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and
including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American
should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears
coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.
Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are
trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.
Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a
big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful,
rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book
Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was
trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look
like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative
speculation, who needs facts?
The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's
taking the political line on the DNC emails!
Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The
"discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."
"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies
.
It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the
Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find
that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have
actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have
been so convinced in their day.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to
consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.
It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should
not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought
into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and
his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them
personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since
1932.
Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control
of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As
Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to
them is high treason.
@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war,
since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both
fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our
survival.
Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the
article
Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No.
Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple
terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone
explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN,
Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual
citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and
genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?
" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is
not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense".
Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war
against Russia.
"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major
newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "
Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every
federal agency such as the FBI, etc
The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan
and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have
co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign
intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that
the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .
Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could
be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to
accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes
you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of
information, especially about people.
I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us
into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero
accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for
having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.
The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes
THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go
unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American,
anywhere, who feels this is okay.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that
hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar
question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch.
Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess.,
while the answer was so close, on the surface.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who
typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a
typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."
I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so
not.
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that
the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and
journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.
August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F.
Tracy
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I
am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here
– in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their
jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.
I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so
largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue
explains very clearly how it works.
-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did
not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and
destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is
true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking
himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over
the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at
least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack
Poland. The trap worked.
@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the
CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret
service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly
for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report
of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud
in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter
Database
While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of
Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database
right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus
on protecting our vote from our own government.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider
even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular
profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine
(initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started
immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but
this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was
confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media
on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and
Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne
Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do
not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government
schooling* .
Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA
The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his
son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA
involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the
French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua.
I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he
sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself
care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the
Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least
since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
The trap worked.
What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the
form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key
sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what
the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist
scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it
works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.
As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that
holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and
came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who
assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the
British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA
would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much
mistaken.
"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very
much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery
to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference,
it would be illegal".
@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects
depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel
that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make
the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed
by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on
Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela,
has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an
American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014
I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a
Zio-bankster-quisling.
PG:
the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken
in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
getting to the crux of the matter
when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan /
Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine
(some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate
Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".
The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as
you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])
has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria
and elsewhere too.
All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll
eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery.
Which brings us to this curious comment..
The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!
So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know
the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made
symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the
zio-media/AIPAC/etc..
His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the
apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.
In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on
the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.
And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at
Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's
need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets
them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get
to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than
anything else.
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient ..."
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments ..."
"... the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct, or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently. ..."
"... Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids. ..."
"... The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid evidence of anything. ..."
"... Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents ..."
"... The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning to unravel ..."
"... The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general ..."
"... That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller. Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because he's so obviously a criminal himself ..."
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe
that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been
met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None. And that's been the main criticism of the investigation from
the get go. It's fine for the New York Times and the Washington Post to reiterate the same tedious, unsubstantiated claims over and
over again ad nauseam. Their right to fabricate news is guaranteed under the First Amendment and they take full advantage of that
privilege. But it's different for professional attorney operating at the highest level of the Justice Department to appoint a Special
Counsel to rummage through all manner of private or privileged documents, transcripts, tax returns, private conversations, intercepted
phone calls and emails -- of the democratically-elected president -- based on nothing more than the spurious and politically-motivated
allegations made in the nation's elite media or by flagrantly-partisan actors operating in the Intelligence Community or law enforcement.
Can you see the problem here? This is not just an attack on Trump (whose immigration, environmental, health care, tax and foreign
policies I personally despise.) It is an attempt to roll back the results of the election by bogging him down in legal proceedings
making it impossible for him to govern. These attacks are not just on Trump, they're on the legitimate authority of the people to
choose their own leaders in democratic elections. That's what's at stake. And that's why there must be a high threshold for launching
an investigation like this.
Consider this: On May 17, 2017, when Rosenstein announced his decision to appoint a Special Counsel he said the following:
"In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and
appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed
or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique
circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree
of independence from the normal chain of command." Rosenstein wrote that his responsibility is to ensure a "full and thorough
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election." As special counsel, Mueller is charged with
investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President
Donald Trump."
That's not good enough. There's no evidence that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" were improper, unethical or illegal. Nor do any such presumed "links and/or
coordination" imply a crime was committed. Rather, the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open
ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands
of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct,
or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently.
Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been
caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation
of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated
to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids.
So, how does one establish whether there's a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed?
The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that
was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the
beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid
evidence of anything.
Here's the from the report:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
... ... ...
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
"The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general."
That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller.
Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because
he's so obviously a criminal himself.
That segment of the general public, as it were, have been opposed to the establishment of the investigation itself from the
first day it was proposed.
According to Politico , a group of frustrated Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee led by Devin Nunes (R-CA) have been
gathering in secret for several weeks to build a case against senior leaders of the Justice Department and the FBI for what they
say is "improper" and perhaps criminal mishandling of the salacious and unproven 34-page Trump-Russia dossier, according to four
sources familiar with their plans.
Devin Nunes (R-CA)
A subset of the Republican members of the House intelligence committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes of California, has been
quietly working parallel to the committee's high-profile inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. [ ]
The people familiar with Nunes' plans said the goal is to highlight what some committee Republicans see as corruption and conspiracy
in the upper ranks of federal law enforcement. The group hopes to release a report early next year detailing their concerns about
the DOJ and FBI, and they might seek congressional votes to declassify elements of their evidence. -
Politico
When pressed for details, Reps Mike Conway (R-TX) and Peter King (R-NY) were mum, with Conway telling POLITICO, "I don't want
talk about what we do behind closed doors."
Nunes' has gone on record several times to discuss his feelings over the government law enforcement, telling Fox News "I hate
to use the word corrupt, but they've become at least so dirty that who's watching the watchmen? Who's investigating these people?"
adding "There is no one."
House and Senate Republicans have joined countless voices, including President Trump's outside counsel,
Jay Sekulow
, to launch a second Special Counsel to investigate the FBI and Justice Department to find out what role the salacious dossier played
in the Trump-Russia investigation, as well as a trove of anti-Trump text messages sent between lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok
to his FBI attorney mistress Lisa Page while the two of them were working together on both the Clinton email investigation and the
Trump-Russia investigation.
Republicans in the Nunes-led group suspect the FBI and DOJ have worked either to hurt Trump or aid his former campaign rival
Hillary Clinton, a sense that has pervaded parts of the president's inner circle. Trump has long called the investigations into
whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election a "witch hunt," and on Tuesday, his son Donald Trump Jr.
told a crowd in
Florida the probes were part of a "rigged system" by "people at the highest levels of government" who were working to hurt
the president.
House Intel Committee member Jim Jordan (R-OH) told Fox News yesterday that they are now considering contempt of the FBI and DOJ
leadership and subpoenas over anti-Trump bias:
I think they were putting together a plan to stop Donald Trump from being the next president of the United States. I think
it's amazing in spite of the fact that the Democrats were against him, the Republican establishment was against him, the mainstream
press was against him. and now I believe the FBI and the Justice Department were against him , the American people still said
that's the guy we want to be the next president.
" I believe that fake dossier was used as the basis to get Warren to now what we learn about Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr and the
FBI and the Justice Department ," said Jordan, adding, " Everything points to the fact that there was an orchestrated plan to try
to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the President of the United States ."
Meanwhile, Trey Gowdy - who notably chose not to call on key witness Peter Strzok or demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr for testimony
- is apparently not included in the group seeking to build a case. As POLITICO reports, "A congressional aide with knowledge of the
meetings said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was not among the participants. " While he does believe the FBI and DOJ have recently made
decisions worth looking into, he is and will always be a defender of the FBI, DOJ and the special counsel ," the aide said.
I think he's intimating that she would have been responded to with extreme violence from the 'deplorables'. Gotta admit: had
she gotten in, we may have already had a revolution. Instead, we get this slow death by a thousand cuts. I'm not sure what is
worse.
At this point I would not trust Mr Gowdy, in fact it's my hope his time with the state of SC ends soon. He's simply shown an
extreme level in lacking execution. After what happened this week with McCabe's closed door testimony, it's clear Gowdy isn't
on the side of the American people. It's called being able to close & he doesn't have it or is holding something back.
The corruption in the FBI is too broad and too deep. This organization is a nest of traitorous vipers who actively worked to
overthrow a constitutionally elected president.
The organisation must be gutted and it's mission absorbed by other agencies. The current FBI management should water the tree
of liberty.
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is
roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of
post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or
government contractor jobs.
As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to
the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:
"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE
congress....And F Trump."
You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is
comprised of creatures of the state.
Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the
Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite
trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected
to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of
officialdom in the Imperial City.
But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's
ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed
by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial
City.
That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at
best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early
days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that
it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.
But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State
into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz,
for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much
different.
No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things
that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.
First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his
sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the
world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.
That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable
maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good
works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic,
bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.
Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the
Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully
pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the
unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its
continuation.
Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would
sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless
tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting
and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe
and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.
Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To
wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most
certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)
By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an
orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the
Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and
economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly
heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.
In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country
and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's
permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and
the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which
the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.
It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an
"insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft
on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.
As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred
on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still
there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the
meeting:
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."
They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of
everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law
enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI
was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to
do with any kind of national security investigation.
For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and
the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that
virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting
with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely
untrue.
As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action
recently:
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS.
Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from
prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began
to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele
on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate
attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general
(later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of
a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the
time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......
Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion
founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the
House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of
Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an
absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to
become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian
ambassador.
Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same
time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian
government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta
emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential
campaign.
As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief,
Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the
back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:
Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their
motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the
sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little
bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service]
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call
you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because
they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.
Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo
and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with
Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August
2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.
Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of
Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright
laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was
one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in
a future Trump government.
Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no
foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy
advisory committee out of sheer desperation.
That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted
the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the
phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to
damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise
from watching TV!
The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied
his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime
and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually
consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor
relations at Rosneft.
Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged
bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other
officials in Trump Tower during September and October.
And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama
administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby
insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.
So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even
cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?
The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's
all they had!
Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75
billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital
intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.
Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election
campaign, that's all she wrote.
There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions
directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by
local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration
lists that could be sold.
The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting
machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election
machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to
waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.
In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an
election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and
their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by
independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made
any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.
And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the
election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue
messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun
control.
And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only
after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead,
this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark
Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator
on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.
In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked
the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network
of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.
Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William
Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded
them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download
speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote
location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only
via a local USB-connected thumb drive.
So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a
conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this
campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.
For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information
obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the
Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington
intelligence agencies.
In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the
post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in
Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the
president-elect's own national security advisor designate.
Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked
General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White
House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.
No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his
perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of
state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens
that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.
And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!
But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the
iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the
media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval
Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never
before.
Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the
tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.
In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever
imagined.
Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy -
kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the
underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go
about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the
texting...
Clue yourself in, David.
A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going
down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news
outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the
matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has
been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).
Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of
seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets
provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on
many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like
the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).
I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't
like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of
magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry-
we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.
When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a
megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.
Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led
to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see
mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions
at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber
world.
Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the
express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a
campaign
This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian
Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files
Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...
I disagree about the economy though.
It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the
makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.
We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another
neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment
bull in a China shop.
Surely Dave can see the potential.
It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.
For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck
did you think was gonna happen?
America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50
years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state
more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move
where they want.
Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober
judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping
on a major party candidate for president.
The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6
documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8
year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any
cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big
picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.
This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they
would play at this level.
As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his
gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how
Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into
packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?
David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!
Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700
thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a
Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.
So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first
then start building the gallows.
fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman
discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is
saying here.
One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:
If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national
level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a
pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but
a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to
for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to
put her on the map.
I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter
resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an
opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the
NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real
time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.
No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but
every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over,
China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market
collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every
fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me
persistent.
It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking
his thumb.
If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the
Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when
the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be
exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their
"insurance policy."
However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be
brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they
will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.
"... the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset". ..."
Though WaPo's Josh Rogin characterizes the decision as intended to appease hawks while
seeking to avoid broader conflict escalation based on "limited arms sales" (and not approving
some of the heavier weaponry sought by Kiev), the move is likely to further ratchet up tensions
with Russia, which is ironic for the fact that the decision comes the same week that former
Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like
"an asset".
Or perhaps we will be assured this is just more 4-dimensional chess playing between
Trump and Putin to prove that not Putin but the Military Industrial Complex is once again
"unexpectedly" in charge?
"... "I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively." ..."
"... Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture." ..."
"... He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible." ..."
"... The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory. ..."
"... Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads. ..."
"I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is.
He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said
on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively."
Clapper took aim at the news that Putin
called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent
a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture."
He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed
over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not
all that visible."
The former intelligence chief said Putin likely learned to recruit assets to help with his
interests when he served as an officer in the KBG, which was the Soviet Union's main security
agency.
"You have to remember Putin's background. He's a KGB officer, that's what they do. They
recruit assets. And I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play
here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our
president," he continued.
The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like
Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also
stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he
found the message to be contradictory.
He also pointed to his previous experiences of trying to share intelligence with the
Kremlin, stemming back to the early 1990s, describing the attempts as a "one-way street."
Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security,
intelligence and foreign policy officials
filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and
Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation
and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web
operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian
businessmen," the brief reads.
"They range from the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is
his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to
the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian
operations and objectives," it continues.
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates?
?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance"
and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either the nuances and subtleties of
it the supposed "safeguards".
I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information
for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.
And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and
that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news"
some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of
winning tic tac toe .
Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending
more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda I think its time we have a real debate instead
of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)
If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement,
he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.
Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported
in the fakenews MSM.
Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh
yeah.
Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with
over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.
The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled
by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there,
detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part
of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after
finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump
sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors,
which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore
the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked,
angry, disturbed etc.
You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you
is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems
from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level
analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.
AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual
"I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.
he Department of Justice is refusing to release details of the process that
led to FBI Director Robert Mueller being granted an ethics waiver to be able to serve as
special counsel investigating Trump's campaign involvement with Russia during the 2016
election.
On Friday, the agency released a one-sentence memo that confirmed Mueller was granted a
conflict-of-interest waiver to serve in the position.
The waiver is believed to be related to Mueller's previous work as a partner at WilmerHale
law firm, which is also the firm that represented former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
and White House adviser Jared Kushner. However, documents signed by the Justice's top career
official, Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott School, provide no evidence as to the grounds
for the waiver. It's actually so vague that it doesn't even state why Mueller would
need the release.
"'Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.502(d), I hereby authorize Robert Mueller's participation in the
investigation into Russia's role in the presidential campaign of 2016 and all matters arising
from the investigation,' Schools wrote in the 'authorization' signed on May 18, one day after
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein formally appointed Mueller to the position ."
The Justice Management Division of the agency found a two-page "recommendation memorandum"
per POLITICO's request, but declined releasing it because it would interfere with the
"deliberative
process inside the department."
The secrecy revolving the situation could result in some Republican lawmakers and Trump
allies to raise doubts about the impartiality of the Mueller investigation. Experts are
troubled that the Justice Department hasn't been more open about the information of Mueller's
waiver.
"'I think it's sloppy,' said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under
President George W. Bush. 'The conspiratorial side of me thinks somebody at Justice is not
giving you the explanation for the waiver because they want to create the impression that
Robert Mueller has a problem when Robert Mueller doesn't have a problem. This is going to
lead to Fox News conspiracy talk.'"
"A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the US's parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense"
ecosystems." Well said. National security parasites are so entrenched (and well fed by MIC) that any change of the US foreign
policy is next to impossible. The only legitimate course is more wars and bombing.
Notable quotes:
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security. ..."
"... Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.) ..."
"... As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia. ..."
"... Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. ..."
"... Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen. ..."
"... I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda. ..."
"... The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control. ..."
"... Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems. ..."
"... Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times. ..."
Despite a lack of evidence at its core – and the risk of nuclear conflagration as its
by-product – Russia-gate remains the go-to accusation for "getting" the Trump
administration, explains Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen.
The foundational accusation of Russia-gate was, and remains, charges that Russian President
Putin ordered the hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails and their public
dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the
Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy."
As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half
of media and government investigations, we are left with Russia-gate without Russia. (An apt
formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer James Carden.)
Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against retired Gen. Michael Flynn,
Trump's short-lived national-security adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and
inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and his
partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with
improper collusion with Russia, except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn.
Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion, have
spread to "contacts with Russia" -- political, financial, social, etc. -- on the part of a
growing number of people, often going back many years before anyone imagined Trump as a
presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal or
potentially so.
This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe
McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of
American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.
More to the point, advisers to U.S. policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must
have many and various contacts with Russia if they are to understand anything about the
dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. I myself, to take an individual example, was an adviser to
two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered my wide-ranging and longstanding
"contacts" with Russia to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president whom I
advised.
To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and
to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is
also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow
suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The
Wall Street Journal and by
The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a
previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest
threat to American national security.
Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in
November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom
remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the
still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.)
That said, the mainstream American media have been largely responsible for inflating,
perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russia-gate as the real political crisis it has become,
arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history.
The media have done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified
news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting to tacit forms of censorship by
systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions.
(For inventories of recent examples, see
Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortiumnews . Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news" should
visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist
Robert Parry.)
Still worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications
once prized for their journalistic standards, where expressed disdain for "evidence" and
"proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these
practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism.
As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable
television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are
examples of Russia-gate without Russia.
Flynn and the FBI
Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution
and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI
about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming
Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to
sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving
office.
Those sanctions were highly unusual -- last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of
Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified
cyber-attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to make even more difficult
Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.
Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is
commonly thought, but Russia-gate -- that is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which
Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation. (Or
which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a
personal rebuff, was eager to believe.)
But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador -- as well as other Trump
representatives' efforts to open "back-channel" communications with Moscow – were
anything but a crime. As I pointed out in
another commentary , there were so many precedents of such overtures on behalf of
presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow
not to make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the
relationship.
When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to
keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of the incoming
administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President
Pence and finding himself trapped -- or possibly entrapped -- between loyalty to his president
and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded with a representative of
the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russia-gate prior to the
election and which had escalated after Trump's surprise victory.
In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately to
Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to U.S. national security, not a
crime. And, assuming that Flynn was acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did
Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way,
it was with Israel, not Russia , having been asked by that government to dissuade countries
from voting for an impending anti-Israel U.N. resolution.
Removing Tillerson
Finally, and similarly, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to
drive Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon,
anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. Tillerson was an admirable
appointee by Trump -- widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and
practical-minded man.
Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely
profitable and strategically important energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the
slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given way to charges that
he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department,
as indeed he should do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have
raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's undermining of this purportedly
glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries,
and editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall a major diplomatic triumph by the
State Department or a Secretary of State in recent years?
The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its
nuclear-weapons potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to the sides involved. Forgotten,
meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested
Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging
of a president by his own State Department.
In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be
ousted. Meanwhile, however, he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russia-gate compels him
to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while, at the same time, calling
for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if
left unencumbered, he might achieve.)
Evidently, Tillerson has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian
counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to
engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments involved in the current
crisis.
Tillerson's fate will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting
America: cooperation or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a
détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that it will become
hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always
involved. But in these unprecedented times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who
represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President Trump
himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to
gravely endanger American national security?
Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and
Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation , where a version of this
article first appeared.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm
"Thanks to Flynn's indictment, we now know that the Israeli prime minister was able to
transform the Trump administration into his own personal vehicle for undermining Obama's lone
effort to hold Israel accountable at the UN. A clearer example of a foreign power colluding
with an American political operation against a sitting president has seldom, if ever, been
exposed in such glaring fashion.
"Kushner's deep ties to the Israeli right-wing and ethical breaches
"The day after Kushner was revealed as Flynn's taskmaster, a team of researchers from the
Democratic Super PAC American Bridge found that the presidential son-in-law had failed to
disclose his role as a co-director of his family's Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation
during the years when his family's charity funded the Israeli enterprise of illegal
settlements. The embarrassing omission barely scratched the surface of Kushner's decades long
relationship with Israel's Likud-led government. [ ]
"A Clinton mega-donor defends Kushner's collusion
"So why isn't this angle of the Flynn indictment getting more attention? An easy
explanation could be deduced from the stunning spectacle that unfolded this December 2 at the
Brookings Institution, where the fresh-faced Kushner engaged in a 'keynote conversation' with
Israeli-American oligarch Haim Saban. [ ]
""The spectacle of a top Democratic Party money man defending one of the Trump
administration's most influential figures was clearly intended to establish a patina of
bipartisan normalcy around Kushner's collusion with the Netanyahu government. Saban's effort
to protect the presidential son-in-law was supplemented by an op-ed in the Jewish Daily
Forward headlined, 'Jared Kushner Was Right To 'Collude' With Russia -- Because He Did It For
Israel.'
"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal
anti-Trump "Resistance" minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel
Maddow, who has devoted more content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to
entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel.
"There is simply too much at stake for too many to allow any disruption in the preset
narrative. From the journalist pack that followed the trail of Russiagate down a conspiracy
infested rabbit hole to the Clintonites seeking excuses for their mind-boggling campaign
failures to the Cold Warriors exploiting the panic over Russian meddling to drive an
unprecedented arms build-up, the narrative must go on, regardless of the facts."
Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this
one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream
source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally
(generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen.
One quick example -- a few months ago the otherwise execrable Hannity actually had on his
show the great Dennis Kucinich who railed against the deep state for attacking Trump b/c of
his overtures toward peace with Moscow and how the deep state was using Russiagate to do it,
etc. Kucinich was sensational. I doubt Maddow would ever have given him such a platform to
voice the truth like Hannity did on this particular occasion.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm
I may have to take a look at Fox again–I bet you are right. Hannity as an arbiter of
truth–oh my god
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm
On this one particular issue, Hannity gets things right.
Rob , December 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
If Hannity ever reports a story correctly, it's only because it coincides with his deeply
partisan interests. Being truthful is something about which he cares little, if at all.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Yeah Drew-
For years I railed against Fox, but nowadays they seem to be the relatively sensible ones.
Tucker Carlson is exceptionally bright, and I have no idea what got into Hannity. I used to
loathe him to no end. Him giving Dennis Kucinich a chance to speak his mind is something I
never would have imagined.
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:36 pm
Isn't it something Mr. Scott?
Dave P. , December 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Drew and Skip Scott – Yes, I agree with you. I watched Dennis Kucinich too. Hannity
and Carlson have been doing some very good reporting on these issues. It is amazing how the
things have changed. Fox News was "No" for progressives to go to.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm
Prior to Trump's presidency I would never watch Fox News, but on this issue,, they are a
more accurate source of information then any other broadcasting media. Rachel Maddow does
nothing but rave, as if she had her own personal agenda, and maybe she does, ousting Trump,
and that a woman didn't win the White House. I too saw the interview with Kucinich, and
indeed it was a very good one.
RamboDave , December 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Tucker Carlson, on Fox (right before Hannity), has had Glenn Greenwald on several
times.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:08 am
That basically maps directly onto the fact that Russia is the one issue Trump is right
on.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Great article. Has America gone off the deep end? I just watched the first ten minutes of
an anti-Putin and anti-Russian Frontline on television two nights ago. I have never seen more
blatant or shameless propaganda. Because my mom watches tv all day and I am taking care of
her, I see the same slop, drivel, and gibberish parroted all day long on the major news
outlets. Perhaps I should state that more professionally: I see the same shameless propaganda
parroted daily by the mainstream news media And it occurs to me–these young news
commentators are not part of a conspiracy, willfully lying–they actually believe the
propaganda. We are in trouble. I think as a group we act much more like bees in a hive or
monkeys in a troop than we do as rational beings, and I mean no disrespect to bees or
monkeys.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more
complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union
where people actually believe the regime's propaganda.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Personally I believe that many do know that there is nothing to the Russia-gate story, but
go along to get along, and they are no different then politicians, who bow before the Israeli
Lobby, or NRA, or corporate groups to get reelected, and maintain their standing in their
party. Another way of putting it, is to say they are willing to prostitute themselves. I
can't see myself doing that.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 12:36 am
I, too, saw this scurrilous 'documentary' – "Putin's Revenge" – and made a
point of writing down the names of a good number of those commentators moving the narrative
along. All of them are well-known active Zionists or children of American Zionists who've
helped create and ardently protect the State of Israel. I wish I could remember now at least
some of the commentors' names. I didn't see Frontline' "Putin's Revenge" on PBS. It was on a
National Geographic channel that traditionally shows those anthropological 'documentaries'
about "Ancient Alien Visitors," "Gods from Outer Space, etc .pleasant programs to fall to
sleep by. 'Putin's Revenge', however, was grotesque in its downright lies – making me
furiously wide awake until I could google info on those names.
alley cat , December 15, 2017 at 2:36 pm
"Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger
American national security?"
The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for
money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do.
They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to
do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor
suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can
prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out
of control.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm
This is a great article by one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable commentators on
Russia remaining active despite the ongoing dangerous propaganda storm. Those responsible for
this storm are threatening our continued existence. Because of this depressing salient fact,
the democratic party, which has been fully on board with this, has totally sacrificed its
legitimacy and degenerated to a clear and present existential danger. Clear thinking people
have to view it as such and take necessary action based upon that fact, which is serious in
its implications, since it is difficult in the extreme to supplant an existing party in a two
party system (which has degenerated into a two faction one party state some time ago) in
light of the media propaganda, intelligence and police control exercised by this odious
system.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:11 pm
Really glad, Mr, Cohen, to see your article in Consortium. Your voice is always a wise
one. Weekly listener.
Very important and accurate information, for the most part, in my view, though I have a
few caveats.
Unfortunately for our perception of the 'goodness' of those in power, I tend to think the
level of knowledge and intention of those who spread Russiagate are more cynical than you
imagine.
When we read certain articles from hardline think-tanks and serious political commentary
from those publications and outlets which sustain the current 'scandal' we see a surprising
awareness of Russia's true intentions and nature. Sober, and reasonable. The problem is that
this commentary is not what is used to persuade any element of the public toward a certain
view on Russia. You instead see it within the establishment essentially talking amongst
themselves.
The problem, as I see it, is that these people are fully aware of the truth, as well as
Russia's intentions. They are just quite simply spinning vast lies to the contrary whenever
they speak to, or in front of, the public. For two main reasons:
Hobbling Trump, for a number of reasons, not least of which amounts to his unwillingness
to pretend he cares about 'spreading Democracy' around the world. More immediate goal.
Trying to put a lid on a rapidly boiling over domestic discontent with the status quo.
Meaning corporate control over the government, pro-corporate, anti-democratic policy, and
endless senseless war.
The remainder of this piece refers to #2.
Russia is an 'enemy' now, more than anything else, because, for whatever it's
self-interested motivations, it is a loud, prominent, powerful voice actively and
methodically criticizing and opposing US imperial hypocrisy, double-standards, and
deception.
We are told they 'sow chaos'. Code for platforming anti-establishment truth-tellers.
We are told they cause us to 'lose trust in our system of government'. Code for them platforming people who help expose, like Bernie Sanders does, how 'our system of government'
has been taken from us by corporations, and making us want it back, for the people.
We are told that Russia is, in however many words, whatever we, ourselves are.
Imperialistic, disregarding of truth and reality, arrogant, entitled, expansionist etc. The
American people are waking up to what the Empire does, and why. The rather desperate idea is
to redirect that knowledge and stick it to Russia. Externalizing an internal threat.
Finally, we are told that Russia is criticizing and grand-standing against the West in
order to tamp down domestic discontent. Which, given the previous entry here, is showing to
be exactly what the US government is doing. To the letter.
Russia is a fake enemy, talked about in a fake way, by fake people in an increasingly fake
democracy. Respectfully, Mr. Cohen, I don't think ideology is the problem. I don't think
those at the helm of US foreign policy have had an ideology in a long, long time. I think
they have, with few exceptions, a 'prime directive': The retention and expansion of
Oligarchic corporate power.
Nowadays, fearmongering over immigrant crime, terrorists, non-state cyber-criminals, or
whatever else conjured to make the extremely safe-from-foreign-threats (To this day no war on
our soil since the Civil War. Itself a domestic threat) American people feel afraid, and thus
controllable and ignorant, is no longer working. Only a big fish like Russia can even hope to
do the job. Plus that big fish is one of the factors 'sowing chaos' by giving a voice to
anti-imperialists in the West to spread the truth of the government we actually live
under.
In short, Russiagate, and it's accompanying digital censorship efforts, are a desperate
attempt to rest control back over the American people and away from honest, rational
truth.
Even shorter, our rulers underestimated the power of the internet.
Kind regards,
Bill
Lois Gagnon , December 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm
Thank you. That is a really truthful post. It really is all about maintaining imperial
hegemony at all costs. Unfortunately, the cost could be the end of life on Earth. These
weasels controlling the machinery of state from the darkness must be exposed as the
treacherous criminals they are.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:22 am
Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s
parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems.
Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication
is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are
exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful
that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times.
And Twitter is helping because western media sources will not tell the truth and people
are taking to it to push back. I agree that at this time Fox is more interested in the facts
than MSNBC, and particularly Tucker Carlson. (The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are
showing what a fouled-up society America has become. It is feminist McCarthyism, sadly, and I
am glad Tavis Smiley is fighting back.)
Yesterday I had a conversation with a loud mouth believer of the "Putin did it" fable and
told him some details, that outright it was a fabrication, and someone nearby in the coffee
shop actually joined to support the pushback with other facts. So, I am hopeful that people
are waking up. And Nikki Haley has just been called by people on Twitter for her lies about
Iran provocation in Yemen. Plus documents on NATO expansion after Gorbachev was assured would
not happen, have just been revealed. I do think people are waking up.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Jessica,
That's what it takes. The political battle of our times. Good on you. I think you're
right. The beginnings of which seem to have motivated Russiagate in the first place. I did a
longer post on this above. Please keep spreading sense. I'll do the same.
Best wishes,
Bill
RnM , December 15, 2017 at 9:25 pm
It's good to be optimistc, but let us not forget the long history (short by Old World
standards) of the oligarchy of doing anything and everything to get what they want.
The present cock-up of Russia-gate (Geez, I hate using that MSM concocted jingo term) points,
not to the oligarchs losing their groove, but to an incompetent but persistent bunch of
Clinton/Obama synchophants. Their days in any kind of power are, thankfully, numbered. But the
snakes are lurking in the bushes, as are the deeper parts of the deep state. It's the long
game that they are in for.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Thanks, Jessica,
A hopeful comment! Here, too, I sense at least some more dissent among us citizens with the
prevailing lies.
When the bubble bursts, the boy has cried and everyone "realises" the emperor is naked, I
wonder, will our governments, politicians and media survive? Everyone, practically, is
complicit.
Thanks, Bill, and I think we're at a profound crossroads in world history. I saw an
interview on YouTube with young Americans who did not even know who won the Civil War nor why
it was fought! We all must speak out with conviction and without anger.
Realist , December 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm
My parents always used to use the old argument to keep my thinking on track and avoid
conforming to dangerous groupthink: "if everyone else decided to jump off the cliff, in the
river or out the 10th floor window, would you just follow the crowd?" Professor Cohen is one
of the rare little boys who either learned that lesson well or has always had strong innate
instincts to avoid following the crowd or jumping on self-destructive bandwagons. Most of the
readers of this site seem to have similar predilections and are among the very few Americans
not being led by the Pied Pipers of all-encompassing self-destructive Russophobia. (Is there
some common childhood experience or shared gene in our personal biographies that compel our
rigorous adherence to the principles we all uphold?) As other posters have noted here, those
few media personalities with a seeming immunity to the pathological groupthink now infecting
most of America are indeed a very curious lot, with little else in the way of ideological
conformity, but thank heavens for them for any restoration of mass sanity will surely have to
originate from within their ranks, examples and leadership. I, for one, am pulling for
Professor Cohen to be among those leading this country out of the wilderness of lock-step
madness.
Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm
We remember an era before 11/22/1963
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Realist I'm glad you brought up the readers on consortiumnews, and their not falling for
this Russia-Gate nonsense. People posting comments here in support of 'no Russian
interference' have been accused of being Trump supporters, but that was never the case. No,
instead many here just saw through the fog of propaganda, and certainly saw this Russia-Gate
idiocy as it being nothing more than an instigated coup. This defense of Trump could have
been for any newly elected president, but the division between Hillary supporters, and Trump
backers, has been the biggest obstacle to overcome, while attempting to explain your thought.
I truly think that if the shoe had been on the other foot, that the many posters of comments
here on consortiumnews would have been on Hillary's side, if it had been the same kind of
coup that had been put in place. It's time to tell John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey,
and Robert Mueller, to call Hillary and say, 'well at least we tried Madam Secretary', and
then be done with it.
Dave P. , December 16, 2017 at 2:43 pm
Realist and Joe – I always enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. Those of us who
have been reading professor Stephen Cohen's articles for more than four decades now , know
that he is the foremost authority on Russia. Instead of being courted to give his valuable
input into the relations with Russia, he and others like him are being vilified as Putin
apologists. It is the sign of the times we live in now.
As many comments posters here on this site had noted, the Russia-Gate has been
deliberately created to confront Russia at this time rather than later on. Russia is in the
way for final push for World domination – the Neoliberal Globalization.
Nobody, in Washington or elsewhere in the Country seems to ask why and for whom they, The
ruling Powers want to establish this World Empire at any cost – even at the risk of a
nuclear war. This process of building an Empire has changed the country as I had seen it more
than half a century ago.
NeoLiberal Globalization, building this World wide Empire during the last three or four
decades had its real winners and losers. Lot of wealth has been created all over the World
under neoliberal global economy.
The big time winners are top .01% and another about 10% are also in the winners category,
and have accumulated lot of wealth. From all over the World; China, India . . . this top 10%
class send their kids to the best universities in the West for professional education;
Finance, High tech, Sciences, and other professions and they get the jobs all over in Silicon
Valley, and big financial Institutions and other professional fields in U.S. , U.K.,
Australia Canada . . .
The losers are middle class in U.S. – whom Hillary called deplorables –
especially in those once mighty Industrial States in the Midwest, and East. With my marriage
here , I inherited lots of relatives more than forty five years ago, most of them in the
Midwest. As somebody commented a few weeks ago on this site about these middle class people
that their " Way of Life " has been destroyed. It is true. All these people voted for Trump.
With the exception of two, all our relatives in the Midwest and elsewhere on my wife's side
voted for Trump. They are good, hard working people. It is painful to look at those ruined
and abandoned factories in those States and ruined lives of many of those Middle Class
people. Globalization has been disastrous for the middle class people in U.S. It is a race to
the bottom for those people.
Ask those relatives if they have ever read anything about Russia during 2016. Not one of
them have ever read or listened to anything related to Russian media or other Russian source.
They did not even know if anything like RT or Sputnik News ever existed. Most of them don't
even know now. And it is true of the people we associate with here where we live. None of
them have time to read anything let alone Russian Media. I came to know about RT during
events in Ukraine in 2014, and about Sputnik News over a year ago when this Russia- Gate
commotion began. And I had read lot of Russian literature in my young age.
As several articles on this website have pointed out those email leaks were an inside job.
Russia-Gate is just a concocted scheme to bring down Trump. And to destabilize Russia –
a hurdle to Globalization and West's domination.
Skip Scott , December 17, 2017 at 8:39 am
Dave P-
Yours is a very accurate portrayal of the heartland of America. I live in a very rural
area of the southwest, and you describe reality there to a "T". They are much too busy trying
to survive to dig too deeply into world affairs. Thank goodness at least they've got Tucker
Carlson at Fox to contrast the propaganda spewers on the other networks. They know the latte
sippers and their government has abandoned them, but they don't fully understand the PNAC
empire's moves in pursuit of global domination, and many wind up in the military jousting at
windmills.
Realist , December 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm
I totally concur, Dave. I'm 70 and well remember, as a little kid, as a teenager and as a
young man, folks talking about a far-off ideal of world unity, wherein all people on earth
would share in earth's bounty and have the same democratic rights. The UN was supposed to be
one of the first steps in that general direction. However, nobody thought that the eventual
outcome would be what the movement has transmogrified into today: neoliberal globalism in
which a tiny fraction of the top 1% own and control everything, with the rest of us actually
suffering a drastic drop in our standard of living and a blatant diminution of our political
rights.
It's been fifty years since I lived in Chicago, and about 45 since I last lived in the
Midwest, but I was born and raised there and well recognise everything you have said about
the place and the people in your remark to be entirely correct. It's also true for most of
the other regions of this country in which I have lived, but the "Rust Belt" has paid the
price in spades to satiate the neoliberal globalist "free traders." (Remember when THAT
catchphrase was first sold to the working classes by Slick Willie's DLC wing of the
Democratic party? He and Al Gore basically ended up doubling the ranks of "Reagan Democrats"
whether they intended to do so or not. And, Hillary was so delusional as to assume those
people would be on her side!)
Dave P. , December 17, 2017 at 11:36 pm
Yes, Realist. That Slick Willie and Gore did the most damage to the working class than any
other administration in the recent American history. And being progressive democrats, we
worked hard for their election as volunteers registering voters. At that time Rolling Stone
Magazine called them as Saviors after Reagan and Bush era of greed – as they called it.
Clintons sold the Democratic Party to the Wall Street and to Neoliberal Globalization. Tony
Blair did the same in U.K. to the Labor Party.
Then we put faith in Hopey changey Obama and worked for his election. And he turned out to
be big fraud too. After his Libya intervention and then on to Syria, I finally got turned off
from Democratic Party politics. My wife, and I had started with McGovern Campaign in
1972.
Talking about Chicago, I landed at O'Haire fifty two years ago during snowy Winter, with
just a few hundred dollars in my pocket enough for one semester on my way to Graduate School.
You can not do it these days. America was at it's best. Ann Arbor was a Republican town those
days with very friendly people. Compared to Europe, and other cultures, I found Americans the
least prejudiced people, very open to other cultures. The factories In Michigan, Ohio,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana . . . were humming. Never on Earth, such a prosperous middle
class on such a scale has ever been created; made of good, hard working people in those small
and big towns. The workers were back bone of the Democratic Party. And every thing looked
optimistic. I, and couple of my friends thought it can not get better than this on Earth.
And all this seems like a past history now. Life is still good but that stability and that
optimism of 1960's is gone. I visited Wisconsin and Michigan last Spring and in Fall again
this year. It is painful to look at those gigantic factories shut down and in ruins. I lived
for a decade in Michigan. As I said in my comments above, the biggest loser in this
NeoLiberal Globalization is American Middle Class.
Piotr Berman , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Jessica K: The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society
America has become.
One could say that there is nothing bad about a witch hunt, provided that it genuinely
goes after evil witches. Perhaps the worst hitch hunt in my memory was directed at preschool
teachers accused of sexual molestation and sometimes satanism. Probably we are not in this
Animal Kingdom story (yet):
Denizens of AK see a hare running very fast and they ask "what happen?" Mr. hare answers
"They are castrating camels!" "But you are a hare, not a camel!" "Try to prove that you are
not a camel!".
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:02 pm
"In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused
of shooting civilians in the Maidan demonstrations in February 2014, the defence has produced
two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign snipers, at least 50 of
them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze have
agreed to testify [ ]
"This dramatic and explosive evidence was first brought to light by the Italian journalist
Gian Micalessin on November 16 in an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale and is again
brought to the world's attention by a lawyer with some courage picking up on that report and
speaking with the witnesses himself. These witnesses stated to Gian Micalessin, even more
explosively, that the American Army was directly involved in the murders.
"The clear objective of the Maidan massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014 was to sow chaos
and reap the fall of the democratically elected, pro-Russian Yanukovych government. People
were slaughtered for no other reason than to destroy a government the NATO powers, especially
the United States and Germany, wanted removed because of its opposition to NATO, the EU, and
their hegemonic drive to open Ukraine and Russia to American and German economic expansion.
In other words, it was about money and the making of money.
"The western media and leaders quickly blamed the Yanukovych government for the killings
during the Maidan demonstrations, but more evidence has become available indicating that the
massacre in Kiev of police and civilians – which led to the escalation of protests,
leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government – was the work of snipers working
on orders of government opponents and their NATO controllers using the protests as a cover
for a coup.
"One of the snipers already admitted to this in February 2015, thereby confirming what had
become common knowledge just a few days after the massacre in Kiev and in a secretly recorded
telephone call, the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet reported to the EU head of Foreign
Policy, Catherine Ashton, in early March 2014, that there was widespread suspicion that
"someone from the new coalition" in the Kiev government may have ordered the sniper murders.
In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that in the course of the
massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that
gained wide attention.
'Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, at the University of Ottawa, published a devastating paper on the
Maidan killings setting out in extensive detail the conclusive evidence that it was a false
flag operation and that members of the present Kiev regime, including Poroshenko himself were
involved in the murders, not the government forces. [ ]
"In the November 16 article in the Italian journal Il Giornale, and repeated on Italian TV
Canale 5, journalist Gian Micalessin revealed that 3 Georgians, all trained army snipers, and
with links to Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgian security forces were ordered to travel to Kiev
from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to
testify in Kiev."
The pretext for the western-supported overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was the
massacre of more than a hundred protestors in Kiev in February 2014, which Yanukovych
allegedly ordered his forces to carry out. Doubts have been expressed about the evidence for
this allegation, but they have been almost entirely ignored by the western media and
politicians.
Ukrainian-Canadian professor Ivan Katchanovski has carried out a detailed study of the
evidence of those events, including videos and radio intercepts made publicly available by
pro-Maidan sources, and eye witness accounts. His findings point to the involvement of
far-right militias in the massacre and a cover-up afterwards:
– The trajectories of many of the shots indicate that they were fired from buildings
that were then occupied by Maidan forces.
– Many warnings were given by announcers on the Maidan stage about snipers firing from
those buildings.
– Several leaders of the then opposition felt secure enough to give speeches on the
Maidan around the time that gunmen in nearby buildings were shooting protestors dead, and
those leaders were not targeted by the gunmen .
– Many of the protesters were shot with an outdated type of firearm that was not used
by professional snipers but was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon.
– Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by five different
TV channels were either removed from their websites immediately after the massacre or not
made publicly available.
– Official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence
collected during the investigations have not been made public, while crucial evidence,
including bullets and weapons, has disappeared.
– No evidence has been given that links the then security forces' weapons to the
killings of the protesters.
– No evidence has been given of orders to shoot unarmed protestors even though the new
government claimed that Yanukovych issued those orders personally.
– So far the only three people have been charged with the massacre, one of whom has
disappeared from house arrest.
Thank you Abe that article could change everything
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:54 pm
Abe,
Thanks for advocating Dr Katchanovski! I have been reading some of his papers since a year or
two and his work seems very thorough! He uses physical facts like trajectories of bullets to
determine where shots originated.
Another expert in the field who knows Mr Katchanovski fully endorsed his academic work
without any hesitation when I asked him recently. He is being published by publishers with
the highest demands. His work can be found in academia.com or is it .org, login is free of
charge.
His work deserves the attention of real journalists.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Oh, sorry, I see u already mentioned academia.edu!
No harm repeating though.
And it is .edu. :)
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Ditto with the airliner shootdown.
Russia is accused and evidence is destroyed/suppressed.
The pattern is quite clear. Russiagate is merely an extension of the same pattern.
Remember those intelligence tests that consist of presenting a series of numbers, and the
test taker has to figure out what the next number in the pattern is . . .
So, the Russiagate thing is merely the next item that continues the pattern of Maidan, plane
shootdown and cover-up, shootdown of plane in Sinai, etc. etc. etc.
I think the deep state REALLY went apoplectic when Snowden escaped to Russia.
They will have their revenged, at any price, to the USA, to Russia, to the world. These
are madmen.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:32 am
It's prove Abe that 'only if you live long enough' applies to learning these newly
uncovered facts regarding the Maiden Square riots. Let's hold out hope that the truth to MH17
comes out soon. Another thing, how can these sanctions against Russia stay in place while
everything known as a narrative to that event comes unraveled.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:31 pm
That's a good article , worth reading in its entirety. Thanks.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 1:23 am
Abe, thank you so much for this information. US fingerprints are all over Ukraine's
sickening economic 'reforms', too! Have you read the House Ukraine Freedom Support Act
– passed by both houses in the middle of the night Dec. 2014? I have. Wade through
until nearly the end where it gives President Obama #1. the power to work toward US
corporations exploring and developing Ukraine's natural resources (including fracking) once
'reforms' have been put in place (privatization); #2. the power to ask the World Bank to
extend special loans for US corporations to develop those natural resources; #3. the power to
install 'defensive' missile sites all along Russia's western borders; #4. the power to free
US NGO's in Russia from their previously non-partisan restraints and allow them to work with
anti-Putin political groups.
I urge you to google Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul/Ukraine Freedom Support Act -2014. You won't
believe how that bill got through the House of Representatives and Senate. And you'll have to
laugh when you hear the word "democracy" in any context with "the USA".
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 6:48 pm
I also see the sexual allegations made against Trump, as another opportunity to oust him
from his presidency. I in no way condone such behavior, but it's disturbing to think the main
motivation driving this is another means of trying to oust him from his presidency. I don't
believe, as these women claim, that they felt "left out", in the recent outings of men who
have misused their positions of power to exploit women sexually.
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm
Yep, the Weinstein thing is being trumpeted and amplified to the extent that it synergizes
wtih attempts to oust Trump. It is handy to the deep state. Trump qua political figure is
being tarred with the Weinstein brush. That is the main reason we are seeing such a heavy
dose of stories on male bad behavior. We would not be seeing this if Hillary were in power.
Just a few stories but not full-court press. Because too many of these bad actors are
actually in the Hillary camp. Like, most of Hollywood. The story wouldn't help her,
politically, if she were in power. It only helps politically to drag down Trump. Before the
Weinstein thing came along, we arleady had teh golden showers fairy tale. In fact it would
not surprise me at all if Rose McGowan had some kind of political support and encouragement
to "go public."
this is no way means that I think this kind of thing is OK. But, things are not
straightforward in our world. It is a political as well as a "moral" or lifestyle story. One
of the political targets is Trump. Notice that the heads of studios who knew all about this
behavior and did nothing are not being forced to step down. Let's check out their political
donations . . .
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:44 am
What if the 'Sexual Predator Purge' stories along with the 'Get Trump Out of Office'
campaign were but two stories colliding into each other? I mean a reporter in our TMZ world
we live in would need paid a handsome sum to continually stay quiet over a Harvey Weinstein
kind of scoop, so eventually these scandals had to come out. And then there's hateable loud
mouth the Donald, who must be stopped by any means. Put the two together, and hey with how
all these big shot perv's are going down, why not corral Trump and force him to resign. It's
even cheaper than impeachment.
So the conniving once again craft together a piece of fiction, mixed in with some reality,
and take the American conscience off into another realm of fantasy. Hate can get anybody
carted off to the guillotine, if the timings right.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:55 am
Andrew Bacevich mentions the Weinstein scandal, and then goes on to suggest what the
conversation should be.
Bacevich is fine as far as he goes
But he never quite "turns the corner" himself in taking the story as far as it needs to be
taken and laying out the conclusions that the public needs to grasp.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am
Yes! That! Thank you, Litchfield.
Bacevich is knowledgeable and worth reading. But he never, afaik, ventures to look deeply
enough into the imperial heart of darkness – "turn the corner", as you say.
Leslie F. , December 15, 2017 at 7:11 pm
So the investigation isn't really about Russia. It is about corruption, money laundering,
tax evasion, etc. All worthy of investigation. Not to mention the conspiracy to kidnap the
Turkish cleric and collusion with Israel This investigation should not be shut down because
the deep state and the press are in a conspiracy to blame it all on Russia. It is up to you
guys in the press to convince your colleagues to call it what it really is, and expose those
members who continue to misrepresent reality. The press, as a whole, has dropped the ball in
a big way on this, but that is not Mueller's responsibility. The 4th estate is a mess and you
should be trying to figure out how to clean it up without violating the constitution.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 7:58 pm
This is one of the reasons I no longer support Democracy Now. As Mr. Cohen said, " worse,
this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for
their journalistic standards, "
God, help us, everyone including mental health professionals have no sense of
professionalism, but they sure know how to make a buck, and try to undo a presidency.
"There are Thousands of Us": Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump's Increasing
Instability
I read your post, and of course I agree. Some of the allegations are so minor, as he
hugged me and gave me a kiss on my mouth. He touched my breast. I was in the dressing room
when he came in unannounced, and my hair was in curlers, and I was only wearing a robe, but I
was nude underneath. Of course some were more disconcerting then those I mentioned, but all
claim to be traumatized. I have no doubt their agenda is to bring him down and the whole
thing has been orchestrated to do just that. Where is all the concern, and coverage of rape
in this country where the estimates go from 300,000 to over a million women raped each year?
Where are the stories about sexual trafficking of children, or the children who are sexually
abused in their own homes? I've never seen coverage on these issues like what is happening
now. That is another reason I find this whole thing appalling. Not to mention using sexual
harassment as a political tool to bring down a president.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:41 am
So many examples of this. There's an alternative newspaper comic I used to like, "Tom the
Dancing Bug" – smart, subversive, and "progressive". But the writer has completely
bought into Scary Putin/Puppet Trump. It's depressing.
"unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous" sums it up nicely. It was also good to have
Professor Cohen's endorsement of this website's courageous initiatives in combatting the
Russia-gate farce.
Bob Van Noy , December 16, 2017 at 11:15 am
I'll happily second that thought BobH. And thanks
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Thank god Consortium News keeps up the pressure on the Russia-gate scam.
And glad to see Stephen Cohen published here.
Readers of this site need to keep reminding themselve of the basic background on this -- at
least, I do -- in case opportunities comes along to deflate others' credulousness.
One question for Stephen Cohen:
Your wife is the editor of The Nation.
What has The Nation done to stop the madness?
Not enough. What's the story?
In fact, during the campaign and post-election, The Nation shamefully lent itself to the
craziness on the left that sought to devalidate not only the results of the election but
Trump himself qua human being. Nothing has been too far below the belt for Nation editors and
writers to strike. I have had the ongoing impression that The Nation's editorial board really
cannot see below the surface on any of this and have driven a very superficial anti-Trump,
"resist" narrative dangerous in its implications. I think I have seen just one story, by a
Patrick someone, that seriously questioned the russia-gate narrative. The Nation has fallen
right in to the trap of "I hate Trump so much and am so freaked out by his election that I
will make common cause with any one and any forces in our polity that will get rid of him
somehow." The nation seems too scared of facing head on the reality of deep state actors in
the USA. Or is too wedded to its version of reality to see what has become incraseingly clear
to growing numbers of Americans.
As many an intelligent and more knowledgeable than I person has said: There is plenty to
decry about Trump. But worse is the actions taken in the name of ridding the country of him
and his presidency.
Because of this consistent cluelessness I have canceled all gift subscriptions to The Nation.
I'll pay for my own sub, to see where this magazine goes, but others will have to pay their
own way with The Nation if they so choose.
So, please clean up at home and get the act together on what is left of the left.
First.
Thought the acronym PEPs was clever, Progressives Except for Palestine. Now it has morphed
into PEPIRs pronounced Peppers, Progressives Except for Palestine, Iran and Russia. Actually
could be PEPIRS adding Syria. If we added Iraq it could be PIEPIRS or Peepers. Actually, I
have little regard for such people whose aims include killing and maiming for land and
money.
Professor Cohen's credentials are very impressive and his voice and pen are badly needed.
People like him are precious resources for America and the world.
PIEPIRS is incorrect with the I before the E making Pipers. So we have PEPs, Peppers and
Pipers. Please excuse the frivolous comments but it feels good to try to expose their
hypocrisy in any way you can, that is of the Peps, Peppers and Pipers.
Gregory Herr , December 15, 2017 at 9:43 pm
What has really been astonishing to me -- beyond a lack of evidence for all the
"Russia-gate" allegations–is the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative in the
first place. Robert Parry has addressed this, but the voice of Stephen Cohen–with the
perspective of specialized scholarship and experience vis-a-vis Russia–is a welcome
voice indeed.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:55 am
The NY Times printed an allegedly explanatory graphic a couple of days ago showing the
Trump/Russia "scandal" as a basically a proliferating root system descending from the central
"collusion" premise, with the roots and rootlets branching down to encompass all the
disjointed facts (and "facts") and allegations that have appeared in the media.
The graphic was unintentionally revealing of the phoniness of the whole business: instead
of showing numerous observations leading to a deeper truth, it accurately depicted
"Russia-gate" as a pre-existing (fact-free) conceit that has chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments. That's the definition of a weak and useless theory!
Gregory Herr , December 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
It seems to that as a representative of the incoming Administration's foreign policy team
Flynn was just doing his job speaking with the Russian ambassador about the sudden and
striking maneuvers of Obama during the transition. And in trying to defuse potential fallout
and escalation due to those sanctions he was doing his job well. Was it not perfectly legal
and well within the parameters of his duties to establish some baselines of discussion with
counterparts?
Flynn's expression of thoughts on policy to counterparts were, to my mind, subject to the
approval of the head of the incoming Administration -- namely Trump, and Trump only.
By the time the FBI questioned Flynn, he surely must have had an idea his conversation
with the Ambassador had been under surveillance. What was the "lie"? Was he forgetful of a
detail and just caught in a nitpicking technicality? Or did he deliberately manufacture a
falsehood? When he gets past his legal entanglement, I sure hope he sits down to a candid
interview. I'd like him to demystify me about all this.
I like your phraseology David this nonsense has been chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments!
David G , December 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm
Thanks, Gregory Herr. In your earlier comment that I replied to, you reference "the
utterly preposterous nature of the narrative". That's not bad phraseology either.
And it also gets to something I've been thinking all along: I'd like to hear a
"Russia-gate" proponent, such as an MSNBC host, actually supply what they consider a
plausible narrative that fits all these breathless Trump/Russia "scoops".
I'm not demanding they prove anything, but just want to hear a story that makes sense.
Because it seems to me that all the little developments they rush toward with their
hummingbird attention spans don't fit together, *even if you concede all the dubious and
debatable "facts"*.
dhinds , December 16, 2017 at 7:28 am
An important interview, for anyone that wants to understand Russia, today.
Damn good Interview (on the part of Putin – He said what was needed to be said.
including "well, this is just more nonsense Have you lost your mind over there, or
something)? He then continued to wrap it up, in a reasonable and and diplomatic manner.
Effectively, the USA continues locked into denial, refusing to accept responsibility for
it's own current state of affairs. (The mass delusion is so thick you could eat it with a
spoon, if it wasn't so putrid).
Warmongering, terrorist and refugee creating Regime Change and mass assassinations (with
neither congressional oversight nor due process), arms and influence peddling profiteering,
the creation of a mass surveillance society and militarized police state that kills
minorities, the homeless and poor with impunity, mass incarceration in private for profit
prisons, increasingly gross inequality and the excessive cost of health care and education;
show the USA to be a society adrift and devoid of fundamental values. (And that's me talking,
not Vladimir Putin)
The Clintons, Bush's and their supporters are to blame and should be held accountable, but
mainly a new course for society must be charted and neither of the two corrupt major
political parties is capable of that at this time.
A new coalition is called for.
James , December 16, 2017 at 10:13 am
Thank you Mr. Cohen for your ever insightful and reasoned commentary on this disturbing
trend.
Clif , December 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Yes, thank you Dr. Cohen.
The lack of scrutiny is alarming. I'd like to offer Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan as
possible figures who are working the lines and should be drawn into the light.
rosemerry , December 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm
Professor Cohen is one of the few who really knows about Russia, so of course so any of
the Fawning Corporate Media (to quote Ray McGovern) denigrate his work. Even in GWBush's time
he often explained "the Cold War is over", and Obama's intemperate rush to expel diplomats
and push ahead the Russophobia after Trump's election had no basis in fact and just
encouraged the Hillary-Dems and neocons to continue the unjustified destruction of the one
aspect of Trump's "plan" that would have benefited the USA and peace.
Bill , December 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Do you really think that Obama was misled by others? I don't believe it. Obama and Hillary
are the origin of the fabrications. Will anyone hold their feet to the fire?
"It's the state-sponsorship of terrorism, stupid." The largest-scale, ongoing, organized
war criminal operation in the history of the world has murdered millions.
Vox has an article "The Left Shouldn't Make Peace With Neocons -- Even to Defeat Trump",
by Robert Wright. Bill Kristol of American Conservative and many other neocons including
Robert Kagan have dual US-Israel citizenship, and they push the MICC toward war. They'll be
pushing for war with Iran and maybe Russia.
Tim , December 18, 2017 at 10:13 am
Sadly, quite a concise, clear picture of the muddy waters called Russia-gate, Intel's
baby, and the faint possibilities of Tillerson and Lavrov holding fast against sabotage.
Let's hope against all hope.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of dιtente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of dιtente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
"... Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said. ..."
"... "Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there, particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained. ..."
"Yes, there is," Barnes replied. "In fact, it's one of the directions that a future
investigation can take. A future investigation doesn't have to focus on whatever it is the
Democrats or liberals want. It can focus on the illegal leaks that took place."
"As I mentioned the other day to a liberal lawyer friend of mine, the worst thing ever
accused concerning Nixon was about using private resources to try to illegally spy on people.
Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include
the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was
not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special
court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said.
"Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally
tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there,
particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained.
"I'm sure the liberals would go nuts if Trump tomorrow started listening in on every
conversation Obama had with anybody that's foreign, or that Bill Clinton had with anybody
that's foreign, or that Hillary Clinton had with anybody that's foreign. So it's a dangerous,
precarious path that Obama has opened up, and hopefully there is a full investigation into that
activity," he said.
"You clearly also have lots of illegal leaks going on, particularly as it related to the
recent Yemen issue involving the widow of the Navy SEAL who passed way, that became a big issue
at the State of the Union. There you had people reporting that no intelligence was gathered.
Well, that's an illegal leak. It turns out that they're wrong, they were lying about
what intelligence developed or the fact that intelligence did develop, but they
shouldn't have been out there saying anything like that," he noted.
"There are people willing to leak the most sensitive national security secrets about any
particular matter, solely to have a one-day political hit story on Trump. These are people who
are violating their oath, and violating the law. Hopefully there is ultimately criminal
punishment," Barnes urged.
"This is far worse than the Plame matter that got all that attention, that got a special
prosecutor in W's reign. This is far, far worse than any of that. This is putting national
security at risk. This is an effective de facto coup attempt by elements of the deep state. So
hopefully there's a meaningful investigation and a meaningful prosecution of these people who
have engaged in reckless criminal acts for their personal political partisan purposes," he
said.
The Russia investigation being overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is beyond
corrupt, beyond political and has now turned into an open-ended fishing expedition.
Rosenstein, who like Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has glaring, inexcusable conflicts of
interest in the case, insisted to Fox News' Chris Wallace that he will keep Mueller from
expanding his s not on a witch hunt.
"If he finds evidence of a crime that's within in the scope of what Director Mueller and I
have agreed is the appropriate scope of this investigation, then he can," Rosenstein said on
"Fox News Sunday." "If it's something outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting
attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation."
Rosenstein says he won't let the special counsel turn into a fishing expedition? It already
has. The whole investigation was supposed to be about President Trump's campaign supposedly
colluding with the Russians. This has gone on 11 months, no smoking gun proving it ever
surfaced.
Yet, instead of ending it there, Mueller is reportedly now looking into the finances of
President Trump and the Trump Organization and associates of President Trump. He has impaneled
a grand jury in Washington, D.C., where the president got a little over four percent of the
vote.
What Rosenstein really said was that he has now given Mueller the green light to do whatever
he wants. Even respected legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat, has said Rosenstein needs
to recuse himself.
After all, Rosenstein is likely going to be a witness in the investigation that he himself
caused because he took the lead in writing the letter to President Trump on why former FBI
Director James Comey should be fired. Mueller reportedly regards that as possible obstruction
of justice.
Rosenstein is also the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn't know or
didn't care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller
interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director's job. You can't make this up.
Rosenstein has sat by while Mueller, with an unlimited budget, has assembled a team of 16
lawyers. Half have made political donations, shockingly, all to Democrats. How is that OK? If
the tables were turned, would a Democrat allow a special counsel to only appoint Republican
donors?
It all comes down to this: Does Rod Rosenstein know what is going to happen if Mueller's
mission creep continues to go unchecked? How does he think voters are going to feel? How many
Trump supporters will feel robbed of their right and their vote in the free election of the
president of the United States?
That would be bad for the country. It would be bad for the system of justice. And it would
be bad for anyone who believes in a constitutional republic.
Adapted from Sean Hannity's monologue on "Hannity," Aug. 7, 2017
"... Scared and panicking Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities: as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification and/or protection. ..."
Obama and Clinton thought they had the election in the bag. They broke surveillance laws thinking that Clinton would be in
the Whitehouse to cover it anyway. Imagine their shock on election day when they realized how many felonies would be exposed when
Trump took over.........cover-up.
Look at her face at 2:06 ... Scared and panicking
Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a
legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities:
as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification
and/or protection.
"... Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated. ..."
"... He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the fiasco. ..."
"... That guy wanted to "kill Russians" and "kill Iranians". He's not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination. ..."
Former CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview that he thought if there was
evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller
would have found it already and that the evidence would've been leaked by now. RT America's
Anya Parampil has more.
Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual
revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated.
He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the
intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the
fiasco.
What boggles the mind is there are 3 or 4 solid ways to go after Trump that don't involve
Russia, but the media doesn't seem to be interested in those.
That is because a) it doesn't exonerate the DNC over it's shitty performance in 2016, and
b) it doesn't push the new cold war (which in turn boosts arms sales, and gives the elite a
way to terrify and therefore control the populace). They thought it was going to work, but
it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Nothingburger is about to be exposed for what it
is.
American politics is a clown show and it's actually embarrassing to watch, the world is
laughing at America because it's like a badly written soap opera live on TV.
Michael Morell is a psychopath and the kind of guy who'd usually be pushing the Russia
narrative. If he is saying this - well that's a mind blowing death blow to the big lie.
Amazing. For once in his pathetic life he actually makes a correct analysis. Fuck
me.
CIA INFILTRATED TOP LEVEL OFFICIALS OF THE FBI. CIA MUST BE BLOWN TO PIECES LIKE PRESIDENT
KENNEDY SAID. IF THE CIA WOULD STICK TO THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION, THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE
IN THE MESS IT IS IN NOW.
Morell didn't think through the implications of his actions! If that's the case it would
be the first move in his life he hadn't thought through. These people think we are cabbages
and believe anything, whether its Comey schoolboy act or Morell lack of foresight, we are
expected to suck it up, its just plain insulting they don't even try and mask their deceit
anymore
Former Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell, gives a surprisingly honest interview in
which he admits that leaking and bashing by the intelligence community against an incoming
president might not have been the best idea.
People need to go to jail for this. Too much power is in the hands of the shadow
government. The democratic party along with the republican establishment need to be exposed
for the snakes that they really are, thank you HA !!
It's SO important to have all the supeanas in place before collecting any documents. I'm
in the middle of a suit and people keep trying to rush... "I'm just gonna go over there and
get a copy...."
"No, not until the lawyer says so!"
Apparently D.C. works by a different set of rules.... and they're blaming the idiots who
gave up the documents, not the ones who are, and continue, to use them illegally. Alternate
universe!
At this point Jeff Sessions is going to go down as literally the biggest fucking douche
bag in history if he doesnt do something - i mean ANYTHING - shuffle his feet / look busy ...
get the group coffee & doughnuts - i'd settle for anything really...
Here's the short list of Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary
Clinton's Crimes.
As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES.
I provided the links for your convenience. HRC needs to STAND DOWN.
CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the
best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad
deeds!"
18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 -
TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of
treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined
under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office
under the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and
Repeatedly. This pattern indicates a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal
Prison.
If Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton would have been
elected. Many if not all of the High Crimes, Crimes & sexual perversion's we see coming
to Light never would have been known off.
The Tyrannical Lawlessness we see before our eyes never would have seen the light of
day.
And, here's the Dark Humor in this. I'm not an Agent / Esq. Attorney from The City of
London. This is common knowledge anyone could Investigate for themselves.
Americans have always been fascinated with the Law. It's the reason some of the highest
rated Tee Vee shows we're all based on Law or the presumption of it. Show such as "Law &
Order" & CSI. Christ Sakes, look at the OJ Trail ratings.
We're now a Nation of Men, not Law. Thus, to my point.
We're now absolutely, completely, open in your Face
Mueller is doing more harm to the fbis already terrible reputation every day this sham is
extended another day. When Mueller is done with this he better watch his backside is all I
can say because many people are pissed at what he has put this country through.
Curious. Whatever transpired during the transition about "contact" with "Russians" would
have been within the authority of the president-elect or his staff.
Why then would emails during transition be subject to review by Congress (or anyone else)
with respect to alleged "collusion" between the campaign and foreign government officials?
And why did not Trump just assert privilege and tell Congress to pound sand?
This is beginning to look like a snipe hunt which is being extended to provide political
eyewash to blind the public to the reality there was no "there" there.
Mueller is dirty. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not the dirt we see on the surface, it
is the dirty hidden below the cesspool of the Washington Mob.
It really is a soft coup by the FBI, CIA, DNC, among others. What a disgrace. These are
the same people who want to be taken seriously. We'll take them seriously once they become
serious. Which is likely no time soon.
All these agencies are wacked right out. What we need is one moar... the Bureau of Pissed
Off Citizens With Pitchforks. The Imperial City is out of control.
Yep...Now the Fake News has all the Trump transition emails and gossip. This entire
operation was a data mining expedition for the DNC and democrats. If you want to know a mans
motives look at who he hires and Mueller has 3/4 partisan left wing hacks working for him.
The fact they think this is ok and no big deal tells you all one needs to know and if it's
proven they have been leaked, then shut this shit show down..This country is a disgrace.
The left and right establishment of DC, the Intelligence agencies, the fake news, and the
Department of Justice have undertaken an overthrow of the constitutionally elected President
of the United States.
This is treason.
This is sedition.
People need to answer for their crimes and should be punished severely.
Justice in the USA is not a thing of the past....
No matter what the previous criminal administrations wish you to believe.
This article never did say what the unlawful conduct was in obtaining the emails. GSA has
no choice in cooperating with Mueller. He has been given broad authority.
I wish there was more objectivity on zerohedge. Mostly it is right extremist hate mongers
who are besotted with one-sided cool aid. They just decide who to hate then lambast them
without looking at all the facts. Nobody would call that smart.
No mention of Bill, Hillary, Awans, Debbie, Seth, Huma, Carlos (perv husband of Huma the
Hummer), Chelsea, and many other things too long to list. Hmmm... maybe the FBI should be
chasing real criminals. But they are merely guardians of the old guard these days.
Investigation was long ago deleted from their mandate.
The sad fact of the matter is that all those involved in this overthrow, fully understand,
their actions and behavior up to and including the spying on, the unmasking, the leaking of
classified information, the slanderous and disinformation shit out by the fake news, etc.,
would eventually be exposed.
Those complicit did not care!
They'd rather destroy the nation than relinquish their unchecked power and ill gotten
wealth.
We are on the verge of the fight of our lives.
US patriots will soon be in the field of battle with the deep state/shadow government/evil
empire.
When the dust settles, no Bush, Clinton, or Obama family member or administration team
should walk free.
This whole thing started out of nothing, or rather from a planted lie, as losers refused
to accept the outcome of the election they thought they have sufficiently gamed. Meanwhile we
have DNC testifying that they don't give a shit about democracy as they can do as they please
as a "private" organization, including sabotaging their own candidates, but yawn to that. We
have a testimony that connects DNC to the murder of Seth Rich, testimony obstructed from
proper investigation by the highest law enforcement agency in the country itself. We have
bureaucrat insurrection, from lowest clerks and judges to highest government officials, aimed
at undermining the duly elected POTUS. This is a revolution in reverse, where ruling class is
trying to overthrow the will of the people. And who is in the forefront of this fascist
takeover and trampling of democracy: exactly the agencies that suppose to protect the country
from that scenario - CIA and FBI. Finally the veil of "democracy has slipped and we can all
see the ugly truth behind it...
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo
posted an article "based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials"
titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian Threat
Unchecked":
Axiomatic to the WaPohacks authors is that NATO ranks right up
there with the 1776 Declaration and the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's
doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as
evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.
Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days
later, since they aren't "fitted to the narrative."
History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS
(Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are,
and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so
painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(
"... The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent; among Hillary Clinton voters, 34 percent. ..."
"... "Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed. ..."
"... 63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 54 percent overall say "independent counsel Robert Mueller has conflicts of interest as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President Trump 's aides "harsher treatment" during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
Despite the intricacies of the Russian collusion investigation, voters have some clear
opinions about the situation, according to a wide-ranging Harvard Center for American Political
Studies-Harris survey -- which weighs in at 204 pages. It is a long poll, and a telling one: A
majority of American voters say special counsel Robert Mueller has a "conflict of
interest" in the investigation.
The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of
interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of
Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who
voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent;
among Hillary
Clinton voters, 34 percent.
Has the investigation itself revealed any evidence of collusion? Thirty eight percent of the
voters overall said that no evidence of such activities had been found, 35 percent said there
was evidence, while 27 percent did not know the answer. Three fourths of the respondents also
believe that "the special counsel is trying to make a case for obstruction of justice against
the president," the poll found. More numbers in the Poll du Jour at column's end.
PAGING MR. SESSIONS
Just a comment from Rep. Matt Gaetz -- Florida Republican and a member of the House
Judiciary Committee -- made during a discussion with Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade . The
pair were discussing the aforementioned investigation into potential "Russia collusion" and the
Trump campaign.
"Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do
his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased
people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If
he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the
issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed.
... ... ...
POLL DU JOUR
76 percent of U.S. voters think the "special counsel" in the Russia investigation is trying
to find collusion between President Trump and Russian officials; 69
percent of Republicans, 76 percent of independents and 83 percent of Democrats agree.
63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton
email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74
percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree.
54 percent overall say "independent counsel
Robert Mueller has conflicts of
interest as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40
percent of Democrats agree.
36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President
Trump 's aides "harsher treatment"
during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56
percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree.
25 percent say the special counsel does not think a charge of obstruction of justice in the
investigation is possible; 31 percent of Republicans, 24 percent of independents and 19 percent
of Democrats agree.
Source: A Harvard CAPS-Harris survey of 1,995 registered U.S. voters conducted between Dec.
8-11.
"... James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protιgι. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. ..."
"... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. ..."
"... We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. ..."
"... Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities. ..."
"... Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly was investigating Hilary's infamous server--he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate ..."
There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under
the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller
go even further back.
James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protιgι. Under the George W. Bush presidency,
when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help.
The two men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was
incapacitated in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with
hubris and almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.
Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang,
having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as
the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick
as thieves.
We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate
Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House
officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including
covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for
the Clintons, no indictments were filed.
Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel
under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the
Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the
Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.
Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle
free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself
from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out
to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes
for President Donald J. Trump?
Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.
Lisa Barsoomian works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times,
Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebellius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times
between 1991 and 2017.
Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times. It would
be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, many of the documents from the Court Docket relating to these cases
have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including her representation for Clinton in 1998's case Hamburg. V. Clinton.
Her loyalties are clearly with the entities that make up the Deep State, as are her husbands.
They are a DC Globalist Power Couple, and they mean to destroy Donald Trump under the bidding of their Globalist Masters. Rod
Rosenstein should not have any position in President Trump's administration, let alone one with so much power to harm the Office
of the Presidency.
Mueller is also a Deep State lackey, even acting as delivery boy for Hillary's State Department, hand transporting ten grams of
highly enriched uranium under the auspices of counter-terror. It must only be coincidence that this happened at the same time as
Hillary and her henchman John Podesta were nurturing the Uranium One deal that would see Russia take control over 20% of America's
proven uranium reserves. Shortly after the Russia uranium deal closed, the Clinton Foundation was showered with many millions of
dollars from Russian donors.
Comey, Rosenstein, and their patron Mueller are truly the Three Amigos of the Deep State. Joined long ago in mutual regard, owing
allegiance only to each other and the enshrined bureaucracy that created them. As their actions show, they desire to thwart the will
of the people and depose the duly elected President of the United States of America by using all the powers at their disposal.
"... "Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock." ..."
"... In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be retained.
..."
"... Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. ..."
"... In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking to
the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died anyway
that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of presidential
elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less restraint than
even Hoover could. ..."
This Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election | The NationThis Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election Throughout his career,
J. Edgar Hoover used the bureau to meddle in presidential politics and secure his own power. By
Jeff Kisseloff October 31, 2016
Even the FBI's history of insinuating itself into presidential campaigns, this latest October surprise shouldn't have been any
surprise at all.
As early as 1919, Woodrow Wilson's attorney general, the progressive A. Mitchell Palmer, deployed bureau agents in an eponymous
operation to round up and deport alleged radical immigrants. The
Palmer Raids were ostensibly a response to a series of bombings,
but it became apparent that Palmer had had something more in mind when he threw his hat into the ring for the 1920 Democratic presidential
nomination and ran on a proto-Trumpian agenda of "undiluted Americanism." Palmer didn't get past the first ballot, however, and ultimately
the raids' most lasting impact was Palmer's decision to have his young assistant administer the arrests. The official, whose own
youthful ambition earned him the nickname "Speed," was 24-year-old J. Edgar Hoover.
Following the Teapot Dome scandal, the seemingly incorruptible Hoover was appointed to head the bureau. If money didn't tempt
Hoover, power did. While he managed to survive the Coolidge and Hoover administrations, Roosevelt nearly brought Hoover's career
to a premature halt. After his election, FDR announced that Montana Senator Thomas J. Walsh, a fierce opponent of the Palmer raids,
would be his attorney general. Walsh told friends that Hoover would be replaced. But that month, Walsh married a Cuban woman in Havana.
After flying back to Florida, the couple boarded a train to Washington. While passing through North Carolina, Walsh's wife found
him on the floor, dead, the apparent victim of too much honeymooning.
Homer Cummings, who replaced Walsh, retained Hoover. The director quickly realized the way to keep his job was to make himself
indispensable to FDR. Wiretapping was a relatively new investigative tool, and as it turned out Roosevelt was eager to use it against
his political opponents on the left and right. Up for reelection in 1936, he had Hoover eavesdrop on the leftist members of the Newspaper
Guild and other suspected members of the Communist Party, despite the party's attempt to establish a "popular front."
Then, as FDR began to gear up for a third term, Hoover went after Father Charles E. Coughlin, the ultraconservative radio priest
who was a major thorn in Roosevelt's side. In January 1940, 17 members of Coughlin's pro-Hitler Christian Front were arrested by
the FBI, charged with plotting to kill several congressmen. Whether the charges were accurate or not, the arrests finished Coughlin
as an influential political figure.
That same year, the bureau sought to quash the opposition of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade veterans with raids on its offices. But
it was in 1948 that Hoover unleashed the FBI for the first time to further his own career. Like everyone who was not a member of
the Truman family, Hoover assumed that Thomas Dewey would be the next president. Hoover's former assistant William Sullivan recalled
that Hoover believed if he used the bureau's resources on behalf of the Dewey campaign, he would be named attorney General as a stepping
stone to the Supreme Court and eventually to becoming Chief Justice.
"Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock."
At the same time, the bureau was intensely involved in disrupting Henry Wallace's third-party campaign. Wallace had been a target
of the FBI when he was still vice president, but in 1948, the bureau stepped up its activities by surveilling and intimidating Wallace
staffers and supporters and feeding negative information about Wallace to the press and the Truman campaign, which cooperated with
the bureau's efforts. Truman's victory marked an end to Hoover's ambitions. The 1952 election and the subsequent races found the
director again in survival mode by making himself useful to his favored candidates.
While most people remember the 1952 campaign for Richard Nixon's "Checkers" speech, the FBI's efforts to slander Adlai Stevenson
(perhaps for personal, as well as political reasons) as a closeted homosexual gets less attention. According to Hoover's biographer,
Curt Gentry, the director was the source of rumors that Stevenson had once been arrested on morals charges. The same rumors were
spread in 1956, but only Walter Winchell took the bait, notoriously declaring that a vote for Stevenson was a vote for Christine
Jorgensen.
In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be
retained.
Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. As a last-ditch effort to help the
troubled Hubert Humphrey campaign, Johnson announced the resumption of peace talks with North Vietnam. He soon learned, however,
that South Vietnam's president Nguyen Van Thieu was sabotaging the effort, convinced he could get a better deal if Nixon won.
Madame Anna Chennault, a GOP leader and a close friend of South Vietnam's ambassador Bui Diem, was the person whispering in Thieu's
ear. Gentry writes that when information turned up that she was communicating to Nixon through Spiro Agnew, Johnson thought he had
clinched the election for Humphrey, but Agnew's phone records just happened to turn up missing. The investigation was closed and
Nixon went on to a narrow victory.
In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking
to the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died
anyway that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of
presidential elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less
restraint than even Hoover could.
In 1948, Henry Wallace grasped the larger issues stemming from the FBI's actions, declaring, "We Americans have far more to fear
from those actions which are intended to suppress political freedom than from the teaching of ideas with which we are in disagreement."
If Hoover were alive today he'd be 121 years old and undoubtedly still running the FBI. Considering Comey's actions, perhaps a
sιance would be in order to see if he still is.
"... A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community. ..."
A previous version of
Monday's story by Maggie Haberman, titled "Trump's Deflections and Denials on Russia
Frustrate Even His Allies," made reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that have
supposedly all concurred in the assessment of Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential
race.
Despite the mainstream media and the political left making
constant reference for months to the "17 intelligence agencies" agreeing on Russia's
actions during the campaign, this has repeatedly been debunked. The single released report on the matter
from the American intelligence community was produced by only three intelligence agencies
– the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and
the National Security Agency (NSA).
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
confirmed in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the "17 agencies"
line was fake news. While there are 17 American intelligence agencies and none, to his
knowledge, objected to the CIA/FBI/NSA report, none of the other 14 agencies have published any
independent confirmation of its claims.
The phrase "17 intelligence agencies" seems to have entered the public discourse after
Hillary Clinton used it in her second debate with Trump. Despite its demonstrable inaccuracy,
it continues to feature in articles from across the mainstream media. For example, an
Associated
Press wire story that Breitbart News carried last week uncritically uses the 17-agency
figure.
For its part, the New York Times felt compelled to issue a correction after using
the same phrase. The following was added below Haberman's article:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said
Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment
was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the
American intelligence community.
Note: The figure of four agencies is reached by including Clapper's office in addition to
the three agencies that compiled the published report.
"... Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote up a correction, that is. ..."
Trump criticizes media over alleged mind-meld of '17 intelligence agencies' over Russia
meddling - The Washington Post As a matter of timing, it was odd: Last week, the New York Times
attached a lumpy correction to a story about the political dynamics of President Trump's
various proclamations on
Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election . The story highlighted the president's
various "asterisks, wisecracks, caveats or obfuscation" about Russian cyberattacks, and made a
reference to the consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" about Russian interference.
Here's the text:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about
Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was
made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National
Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American
intelligence community.
News organizations had been repeating that "17 intelligence agencies" line for months and
months, with no corrections in sight. Why was the New York Times issuing a correction all of a
sudden? And why did the Associated Press
add a clarification one day later? Who asked for it? The New York Times declined to comment
beyond the correction. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence also declined to
comment on the record.
Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much
exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote
up a correction, that is.
"... For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." ..."
"... The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though substantial evidence pointed to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks. ..."
"... The Associated Press followed ..."
"... "In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment." ..."
For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly
dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." The firestorm first began when Hillary
Clinton – darling of the U.S. intelligence community, the mainstream press, and Wall
Street – failed to win the electoral contests that the media had been convinced was her
for the taking.
The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and
accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the
Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign
became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her
campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though
substantial evidence pointed
to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks.
Once the Russian hacker narrative became established, the media began working overtime to
connect Trump and his campaign to Russia – creating the illusion of a "bromance" between
Trump and Putin despite the fact that the two had never met. Much of the evidence
for the so-called "bromance" centered around Trump stating during the campaign that
he wanted to improve U.S.-Russia ties, which drastically deteriorated under the Obama
administration, and wanted to work with the Russians to defeat Daesh (ISIS).
The bromance and the campaign collusion narrative have been continuously and intensely
pushed by several high-ranking politicians of the Democratic Party. In fact, the push has been
so intense that it
has now backfired for Democrats.
As a result, it has since
become a "crime" in the eyes of the mainstream media for any U.S. politician to interact or
to have previously interacted with any Russian official. It has also meant that defending
Russia's government or its actions could quickly turn you into
the laughingstock of the mainstream press
But some of the most prestigious news organizations in the country have been forced to
retract a major claim that has stood at the center of the Russia hacking media frenzy:
namely that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump." Last week, both the New
York Times and The Associated
Press were forced to retract the claim from several of their articles, as the
oft-repeated statement has been proven to be false.
The New York Times was first,
adding a correction to a June 25th article which stated:
"A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made
by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security
Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence
community."
"In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press
reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected
by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.
Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment."
One of the most enduring data points of the whole Trump-colluded-with-Russia
fantasy was the idea that there was a unanimity among US intelligence agencies that a) the
Russians had intervened in some way, and b) that intervention was calculated to help Trump. The
collusion conspiracy theorists have thrown on a third layer which is that members of Trump's
campaign were working hand-in-glove with the Russians to do something nefarious. What? Well, we
don't know.
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed
the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US
political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like
DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the
Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of
Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US
election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar
tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion
there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's
senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
The statement is tailored narrowly and only speaks to encouraging states to seek federal
help in securing their voting systems (though, given the federal government's track record in
keeping stuff secure, I'm not sure that's a great idea.)
A week later, in the final Clinton-Trump debate, Clinton made this claim
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director
of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17
federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election.
That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton
stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence
agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these
cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence
our election. I find that deeply disturbing."
Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint
statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National
Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions,
including from U.S. political organizations."
The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing
Russian intentions during the presidential election.
While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear
in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian
interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security
Agency (NSA).
Referring to the assessments, Clapper
stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and
the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my
former office."
Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.
FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for
– for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17
of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only
three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation
because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to
this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it
to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came
out.
The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to
'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and
Cyber Incident Attribution."
The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.
The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated
among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and
disseminated by those three agencies."
Following Clinton's presidential debate
claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."
However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:
We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director
of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies,
released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia
is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.
PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today
piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio." Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him
onFacebook.
"... How about Hillary telling her banker friends in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform" had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that? ..."
"... Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and confessed to being "really good" at killing people. ..."
"... We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State". ..."
"... Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues, Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation" ..."
Wow, you really have drunk the kool-aid! Didn't you read any of the leaked emails?
How about Hillary telling her banker friends
in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform"
had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that?
And Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and
confessed to being "really good" at killing people.
The only thing you are right about is our Democracy is broken (in fact, it
never existed in the USA). Willful blindness will not make us "Stronger Together", only dismantling the "Deep State" will do that.
We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued
control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State".
turk 151 , December 14, 2017 at 1:22 pm
Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues,
Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation"
"... The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative. ..."
"... The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!" ..."
The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on
Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports
Robert Parry.
If Russia-gate is the massive scandal that we are told it is by so many Important People --
across the U.S. mainstream media and the political world -- why do its proponents have to
resort to lies and exaggerations to maintain the pillars supporting the narrative?
A new example on Thursday was The New York Times' statement
that a Russian agency "spent $100,000 on [Facebook's] platform to influence the United States
presidential election last year" – when the Times knows that statement is not true.
According to Facebook, only 44 percent of that amount appeared before the U.S.
presidential election in 2016 (i.e., $44,000) and few of those ads addressed the actual
election. And, we know that the Times is aware of the truth because it was acknowledged in a
Times article in early October.
As part of that article, Times correspondents Mike Isaac and Scott Shane reported
that the ads also covered a wide range of other topics: "There was even a Facebook group for
animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid
ads."
As nefarious as the Times may think it is for Russians to promote a Facebook page about
"adorable puppies," the absurdity
of that concern – and the dishonesty of the Times then "forgetting" what it itself
reported just two months ago about the timing and contents of these "Russian-linked ads"
– tells you a great deal about Russia-gate.
On Thursday, the Times chose to distort what it already knew to be true presumably because
it didn't want to make the $100,000 ad buy (which is not a particularly large sum) look even
smaller and less significant by acknowledging the pre-election total was less than half that
modest amount – and even that total had little to do with the election.
Why would the Times lie? Because to tell the truth would undercut the narrative of evil
Russians defeating Hillary Clinton and putting Donald Trump in the White House – the core
narrative of Russia-gate.
Another relevant fact is that Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its
first two searches and only detected the $100,000 after a personal visit from Sen. Mark Warner,
D-Virginia, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator on
Internet regulation.
In other words, Facebook's corporate executives dredged up something to appease Warner. That
way, Warner and the Democrats could blame Russia for the Trump presidency, sparing further
criticism of Clinton's dreadful campaign (in which she labeled half of Trump's voters
"deplorables") and her neo-liberal economic policies (and neo-conservative foreign policies)
that have alienated much of America's working class as well as many progressives.
Leaving Out Context
The Times also might have put the $100,000 in "Russian-linked" ads over a two-year period in
the context of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue, but the Times didn't do that –
apparently because it would make even the full $100,000 look like a pittance.
Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt
with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative.
Ironically, the Times' latest false depiction of the $100,000 in ads as designed "to
influence" the 2016 election appeared in an
article about Facebook determining that other Russian-linked ads, which supposedly had a
powerful effect on Great Britain's Brexit vote, totaled just three ads at the cost of 97 cents.
(That is not a misprint.)
According to Facebook, the three ads, which focused on immigration, were viewed some 200
times by Britons over four days in May 2016. Of course, the response from British
parliamentarians who wanted to blame the Brexit vote on Moscow was to assert that Facebook must
have missed something. It couldn't be that many Britons had lost faith in the promise of the
European Union for their own reasons.
We have seen a similar pattern with allegations about Russian interference in German and
French elections, with the initial accusations being widely touted but not so much the later
conclusions by serious investigations knocking down the claims. [See, for instance,
Consortiumnews.com's " German
Intel Clears Russia on Interference. "]
The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!"
These days in Official Washington, it has become almost forbidden to ask for actual evidence
that would prove the original claim that Russia "hacked" Democratic emails, even though the
accusation came from what President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
acknowledged were "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
These "hand-picked" analysts produced the
evidence-lite Jan. 6 "assessment" about Russia "hacking" the emails and slipping them to
WikiLeaks – a scenario denied by both WikiLeaks and Russia.
When that "assessment" was released almost a year ago, even the Times' Scott Shane noticed
the lack of proof,
writing : "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most
eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government
engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to
'trust us.'"
But the Times soon "forgot" what Shane had inconveniently noted and began reporting the
Russian "hacking" as accepted wisdom.
The 17-Agencies Canard
Whenever scattered expressions of skepticism arose from a few analysts or non-mainstream
media, the doubts were beaten back by the claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies"
concurred in the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the hacking to
hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. And what kind of nut would doubt the collective
judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies!
Though the 17-agency canard was never true, it served an important purpose in establishing
the Russia-gate groupthink. Wielding the "all 17 intelligence agencies" club, the U.S.
mainstream media pounded politicians and policymakers into line, making any remaining skeptics
seem more out of step and crazy.
So, in May 2017, when Clapper (along with former CIA Director John Brennan) admitted in
congressional testimony that it wasn't true that all 17 agencies concurred in the Russian
hacking conclusion, those statements received very little attention in the mainstream
media.
The New York Times among other major news outlets just continued asserting the 17-agency
falsehood until the Times was finally pressured to correct its
lie in late June , but that only led to the Times shifting to slightly different but still
misleading wording, citing a "consensus" among the intelligence agencies without mentioning a
number or by simply stating the unproven hacking claim as flat fact.
Even efforts to test the Russian-hack claims through science were ignored or ridiculed. When
former NSA technical director William Binney conducted
experiments that showed that the known download speed of one batch of DNC emails could not
have occurred over the Internet but matched what was possible for a USB-connected thumb drive
-- an indication that a Democratic insider likely downloaded the emails and thus that there was
no "hack" -- Binney was mocked as a "conspiracy theorist."
Even with the new disclosures
about deep-seated anti-Trump bias in text messages exchanged between two senior FBI
officials who played important early roles in the Russia-gate investigation, there is no
indication that Official Washington is willing to go back to the beginning and see how the
Russia-gate story might have been deceptively spun.
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did. A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want
to know what these senior FBI officials had in mind.
But the Times and other big promoters of Russia-gate continue to dismiss doubters as
delusional or as covering up for Russia and/or Trump. By this point – more than a year
into this investigation – too many Important People have bought into the Russia-gate
narrative to consider the possibility that there may be little or nothing there, or even worse,
that it is the "insurance policy" that Strzok envisioned.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
George Orwell was right, he was just a few decades ahead of his time. Non-government actors
in the United States, including Google, have learned an important lesson from the 2016 election
and we can pretty much assure ourselves that the next election will see significant massaging
when it comes to what we read and hear.
ranney , December 15, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Lately I've heard on PBS and other news shows that Russia "invaded Ukraine" and also
attacked Crimea and essentially stole the island back to Russia. I forget the exact words used
about Crimea but that was the gist. I have heard several times people on PBS using the the
words Russia "invaded Ukraine" to describe what happened there. Like the N.Y.T. PBS is supposed
to be the go to place for unbiased news and now they are blatantly lying to the public –
and have been lying certainly as far back as 2014, if not before.
It's very discouraging to know that there are so few places where one can go to get actual
facts. Consortium is one and, surprisingly RT is often another – at least RT tells us
about stuff going on in other parts of the world that we never hear about in the MSM. Boy! talk
about being an insular country! America is the most isolated country in the world when it comes
to knowledge about other lands. We go on about how narcissistic Trump is, but the fact is that
our whole government and our MSM is totally narcissistic and has been for quite a while –
all we think about is us- and our government is willing to kill and lay waste anyone or any
country that doesn't do exactly what we want, even when what we want is disasterous for not
only other countries, but also disasterous for our own country. We are so narcissistic that we
can't see it.
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Well ranney, while I look at and read this site regularly, I gotta say that Trump is merely
a doppelgänger for our country's collective psyche. This country is off the rails in every
way possible. Yes, that includes those bad apples of the deep state AND compliant hamster
citizens who vote and are currently scurrying about on the wheel of capitalism in pursuit of
the Christmas Machine. All the hand wringing done on this web-site ain't gonna change any of
it.
Mr. Parry would do everyone justice by taking his excellent skills and expanding his writing
repertoire beyond Russia-gate. I'm seriously beginning to wonder what's up with him that he
repeatedly beats the same old sorry drum- like the MSM- only on the opposite side. It's getting
tiresome. How about proposing solutions to what ails us?
Sorry to ruin everyone's party.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 4:46 pm
"major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump-Russia story,
always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of
incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be
corrected, walked back, or retracted -- often long after the initial false claims spread, and
where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial
false stories are lavished:
– Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter
(Wash Post)
– An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin
agents (Wash Post)
– WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
– A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
– RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
– Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
– Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets,
echoing Homeland Security)
– Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment
fund under investigation (CNN) [ ]
"But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and
consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility
for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can't mean hiding behind
P.R. and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.
"At minimum, these networks -- CNN, MSNBC, and CBS -- have to either identify who purposely
fed them this blatantly false information or explain how it's possible that 'multiple sources'
all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries
and protests the next time they're attacked as 'Fake News' should fall on deaf ears, since the
real author of those attacks -- the reason those attacks resonate -- is themselves and their
own conduct."
Hilary gave it away, as the (anti-democratic)"Democratic Party" gave it all away and has
been doing it for decades.
Whereas the right has wisely (for it's purposes) built long term infrastructure of funded think
tanks, media, fundamentalist ideologists, etc; the Democratic Establishment has dumped on it's
base at practically ever turn, never really showing actual support for it's public community,
and has joined with the right to destroy all attempt to build an actual peoples' political
party.
I just turned 84 and have witnessed the ever-growing weakness and right-leaning of the Party"
since I was a little kid and have seen it only become more disgustingly lame and disingenuous
in all these years since, with extended travel, 20-year military service and work around the
world, in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
And we are largely to blame, being humans and Americans, we sit back-busy with our lives, and
neglect our responsibilities to our fellow man and community.
Get up off your ass, guys
JOHN L. OPPERMAN , December 15, 2017 at 4:53 pm
I must add, the so-called Party has quite consistently ACTIVELY fought against labor,
consumers, t's own loyal public.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Among the many great comments posted here I find in your resume Mr Opperman a ton of
experienced words worth listening too. In fact, it is people such as yourself that I feel our
younger generation should be learning from. Your traveling, and working for the government has
given you an insight that many of us do not have, nor will get since we are all not like you
John. So keep posting, and tell us what you think America should do next, as we go forward.
Thank you for your remarks, they are respected for what you have earned. Joe
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Thanks for this post John.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm
In the end, this whole RussiaGate scandal may actually have a positive impact if it can be
proven that it was a conspiracy cooked up by the "Deep State" as insurance in case of a Trump
victory. If this is proven and actually becomes common knowledge, people like Brennan and
Clapper, and their MSM mouthpieces, will never be trusted again. Though heads didn't roll after
the exposure of the "weapons of mass destruction" lie, this one might tip the balance. Their
argument that the "intelligence was mistaken" won't fly, as RussiaGate is so obviously a
purposely constructed lie. It would be even greater if this led to a counter-investigation
where all the perps were exposed and publicly prosecuted, and the Intelligence Agencies were
"broken into 1000 pieces." Maybe while they were at it, they could get around to auditing the
Pentagon. I like to dream big.
My hope is that websites like this one can continue to build an audience and speak truth to
power now that net neutrality appears dead.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Funny how the NYT will try and make hay with a collection of various Russian disjointed ads
on Facebook with an investment of $44,000.xx out weights the 4.9 billion dollars worth of free
media coverage the MSM gave Trump through the whole 2016 presidential campaign, and nobody
thinks nothing of it. If there was any type of collusion to help Trump win the White House then
why not question this free media give away?
As a side note, should we investigate Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn for colluding with
Israel?
Senator Mark Warner plays the part of the inquisitor well, and for that reason he has loss
my respect, if he ever had it to begin with. Enough of covering up for Hillary's guilt complex
to why she loss the election. Someone should just tell her, that even though she has done
everything there is in her power to take Putin out of power, that her presidential loss is all
on her. Putin didn't need to interfere, since by Hillary just being Hillary was enough to keep
her out of reach of the Oval Office.
I hope that in the coming year, that by some stroke of luck, that William Binney will get
the praise he deserves. We need more people like Binney working in our government, and without
him we all are left vulnerable to the many who don't represent our citizen values. I thought
the MSM's treatment of William Binney was disgraceful, to say the least.
Lastly, I would only hope that whoever it was that started this Russia-Gate nonsense would
be revealed, but hope doesn't prosecute anyone, but knowledge at least allows you too see who
and what is behind the curtain.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:46 pm
" a collection of various Russian disjointed ads on Facebook with an investment of
$44,000.xx .."
Yes , it was amazing that Russia was able to control our election so cheaply , but really ,
that was nothing. They swung the UK Brexit vote with Facebook ads costing them only 97 cents !
:
This whole Russiagate fraud could serve to awake a lot of Americans, if they would only look
into it. You are not going to find a more blatant example of fake news by every major media,
and also those supposedly upstanding Senators and Representatives, FBI and Justice Icons. If
the public ignores opportunities to wake up to this outrageous scam being perpetrated on them
now, there is little hope that they ever will. I try to get my friends interested in
researching Russiagate, and a few of them have become curious and started asking questions
– that's how awakening begins .
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Agreed. It's important to have just one or a few topics at most that you can suggest to your
uninformed friends as being worthy of their own time to research , with the ultimate goal of "
waking up ". Russia-gate is perfect. The Syrian War is another good one.
Pablo Diablo , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Also, a convenient excuse to discredit the "Special Counsel" Mueller investigation. "Witch
hunt", "Fake News", which will come in handy if any real crimes are exposed. Reminds me of one
criminal mob taking over territory from the current bunch of criminals.
Sad to see. The definition of "government" is that it represents "the people". Yet, I wonder if
any government on Earth does represent "the people".
Brendan , December 15, 2017 at 6:02 pm
In spite of all the blatant lies that it publishes, the New York Times is still highly
regarded by the political and media establishment, even in Europe.
In Hamburg on 3 December 2017, the NYT was awarded the Marion Dönhoff Prize for
International Understanding and Reconciliation. In his presentation speech, the German
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the NYT as an authority of enlightenment and a
beacon of reason.
In fact, none of the media outlets that were recently declared foreign agents by Moscow is
either independent or a newspaper. That list consists only of the US government financed VOA
and RFE/RL and a number of websites and broadcasters that VOA and RFE/RL control.
Apart from that, the Russian "foreign agents" list is just a direct retaliation against
Washington for doing exactly the same thing to RT and Sputnik, who were forced to register as
foreign agents. Apparently the "freedom of the press" isn't so important when it applies to
Russian media organisations working in the USA.
"... Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel. It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New World Order. ..."
"... Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a national security threat." Objective reality? ..."
"... The "Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged" elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college, ranked voting and more. ..."
"... "Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner, and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel. ..."
"... "The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead, Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump administration." ..."
"... Mueller Names Trump's Foreign 'Colluding' Power: Israel By Wayne Madsen ..."
"... Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course. ..."
Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel.
It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to
destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is
the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New
World Order.
China and Russia are only nominal adversaries in the world economy. They also
want to impoverish the majority of the world's population even at the cost of enriching some
individuals to the point of becoming gods. In a sense, this is what liberals have wanted, to
level the field that the poor people of the world exist on.
jaycee , December 14, 2017 at 2:26 pm
Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly
states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that
Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White
House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the
personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his
administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a
national security threat." Objective reality?
Colleen O'Brien , December 14, 2017 at 2:30 pm
All the layers of deceit, denial and distraction bode ill for the Democratic Party and
MSM. Thank you Robert Parry for standing up to all this disinformation & propaganda. The
"Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election
process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged"
elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college,
ranked voting and more.
Reforming our election process is the most important issue because what we have now and
what came before is because of the money which owns the politicians and who no longer
represent the American People! Nothing will change until we fix this!
Abe , December 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm
"Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than
just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting
American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner,
and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to
do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed
virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel.
"There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will
never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump,
Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from Israel
on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US Espionage Act.
Israel's 'Greek Chorus' of supporters in the US news media and Congress brought up the Logan
Act to minimize the damage caused by collusion between Israel's skink-like ambassador to the
UN Danny Danon, Netanyahu, Kushner, Flynn, Trump, and Haley to kill the resolution. If the
Logan Act had any enforcement teeth, it would have been used a long time ago to indict George
Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Paul Singer, and other pro-Israeli billionaire
influence-peddlers, who represent the interests of other nations and engage in their own
foreign policies.
"The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving
Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve
Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead,
Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations
located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the
Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for
Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump
administration."
Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will
inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental
reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe
the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the
accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false
accusation – without the slightest proof, of course.
Mild -ly - Facetious , December 14, 2017 at 5:29 pm
If "our plan" exist, then Michael Morell should be persecuted.
Notable quotes:
"... Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n. ..."
"... Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml ..."
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant
Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled
with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n.
Anna , December 14, 2017 at 1:11 am
"You all keep hating on Democracy."
-- Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director
of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml
Your "democracy" was nowhere when Mr. Clinton had been molesting underage girls on Lolita express. Your "democracy on the march,"
Clinton-Kagan style, has destroyed Libya and Ukraine. Millions of innocent civilians of all ages (including an enormous number
of children) died thanks to your Israel-first & oil-first Clinton & Obama policies.
Very democratic ("We came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha" and the gem of Northern Africa has become a hell for Libyan citizens).
One does not need to be Trump apologist to sense the stench of your rotten Clinton-Obama-CIA-FBI "democracy."
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically
charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many
free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the
media which make the US look like a banana republic.
The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat
with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to
discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG,
leaves one flabbergasted.
And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour,
tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just
inconceivable.
Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and
that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could
conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never
been so low.
...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.
Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant
formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered
both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either
level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney
General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon
charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly
before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and
the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but
which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro
Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his
legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.
Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate.
Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the
tax changes good for the rich against the many.
I think the people are being played.
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively
bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the
anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current
President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has
taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for
now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily
formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and
resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it
is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.
Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths
are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since
WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys.
How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured
status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is
lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned
by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.
Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly
zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha
ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's
descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump
as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of
us".
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite
openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his
first inauguration.
But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political
events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should
she start making sense now?
It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence
will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the
Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is
simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were
true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during
the transition period, he's got nothing.
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a
charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say
for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that
juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it
for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to
register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.
It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to
extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend,
Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup.
So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence
him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for
his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever
happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking
office.
The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared
the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its
'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US
intelligence community.
Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against
the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for
ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed
sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.
Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a
democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is
owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its
800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.
Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be
spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America.
Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is
by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.
The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria
based on conjecture and not proof.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Your mask is slipping, Vlad .
Your ignorance is showing.
I have no connection to Russia what so ever.
Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the
Great.
Russia has never relinquished control.
What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is
irrelevant.
And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was
negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives
on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well.
If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama
administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.
I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has
been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to
start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill
from a law professor at Washington University.
the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new
administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to
raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to
seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of
administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait
as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of
an incoming official .
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality.
But not charging Hillary for email server.
Another technicality.
That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI
and the Dems"
It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this
unashamed scale in ancient Rome?
He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN
security council.
So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops.
How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn
flipped?
Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition
war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by
supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on
Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it
is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you
love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer
screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.
Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia,
if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools
playing this stupid games.
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert
Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for
"collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a
congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to
be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount
to global belligerence.
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used...
plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk
deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will
have an impact.
So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low
level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn
with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about
actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this
is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it
particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.
BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president
because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the
United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed"
supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to
at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that
hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to
extend the number of terms he can serve.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you
set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook
ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries.
Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American
politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more
decisive?
The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia
tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more
actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration
weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained
anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then
pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security
council.
And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect.
What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to
undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements.
The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.
Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.
In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National
Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming
special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding
sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and
is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he
had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal
- but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being
charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the
bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic.
Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime
for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States.
Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the
United States without authorization. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed.
Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not
registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for
Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even
though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the
President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December,
after the election.
So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump
campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's
campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before
working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of
which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't
get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other
countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where
were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are
completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.
But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the
temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never
have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an
IQ to match.
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films,
bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will
cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one
on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to
see how it works.
when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had....
decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to
walk the streets?
Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of
the three things that you mentioned???
If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad,
while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people
respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global
influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often
deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.
Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I
read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia,
ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them
as a threat.
It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in
many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent
from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless
deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political
scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt.
So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him.
He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other
global problems.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing
will have an impact
Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an
élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If
anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.
These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of
evil.
Looks like pressure from the "intelligence community" was the decisive factor in appointment of the special prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated. ..."
"... Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"... It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon. The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016 probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.? ..."
"... The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President George W. Bush nominated him to be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional. ..."
"... In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy. ..."
"... The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein -- could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation. ..."
"... turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external, more corrosive ways ..."
In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the
Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated.
You remember Rod Rosenstein. Way back on May 9, Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, was thrust from bureaucratic obscurity
when the White House cited his three-page memo as the basis for the firing of F.B.I. director James Comey.
Rosenstein, after a day or so, then receded from the headlines, thanks to the cyclonic chaos machine that is the Trump administration:
Oval Office leaks to the Russians! Israeli spies! Angry tweets! But the bespectacled, seemingly mild-mannered lawyer just got very
interesting again.
Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert
S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
It was a stunning reversal for Rosenstein, who for weeks had been fending off congressional calls for just such a move. It was
also -- if the details are true -- a stunning vote of no-confidence in President Donald Trump : Department of Justice sources say
the White House was given only 30-minutes notice before the public announcement, and that Rosenstein had already signed the order
at that point. It may also be a sign of Rosenstein's anger at being bullied by Trump last week -- when the White House, amid the
uproar over Comey's firing, tried to pin the blame on Rosenstein.
There were also pragmatic procedural reasons. "President Trump basically forced a special counsel to be appointed the minute he
made Rosenstein a witness to Comey's firing -- by saying that he'd accepted the recommendation of Rosenstein to fire Comey," says
Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor. "Trump disqualified Rosenstein as an impartial prosecutor and made this appointment all
but inevitable."
It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting
of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon.
The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in
the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016
probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.?
Rosenstein will also be grilled about the underlying mess: Was the president trying to slow down or scuttle the Russia inquiry
by firing the F.B.I. director? "We are very curious about that," a Senate source says.
The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years
as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein
stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President
George W. Bush nominated him to
be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous
regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional.
In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy.
"A lot of people, like me, who were really troubled by the Sessions appointment as attorney general thought Rod would be the person
who would stand up for D.O.J.'s independence in a pinch," says Matthew Miller, who was Attorney General Eric Holder's spokesman.
"And that did not prove to be the case last week. Rod wrote that memo, and it was a farce. It was a cover story so Trump could fire
Comey over the Russia investigation. That was the moment for Rod to stand up and say no, and not only did he not do that, he helped
load the gun for Trump."
The truth could be more complex, of course: Rosenstein may have genuinely believed Comey should be fired, and he also may have
been an unwitting tool for Trump and Sessions. Appointing a special counsel "is an admission by Rosenstein that he messed up badly
last week," Miller says. "He still needs to explain himself to Congress."
Attorneys on both sides of the political aisle who know Rosenstein don't question his impartiality when it comes to evaluating
facts and legal issues. They wonder, however, whether Rosenstein has been out of his political depth as deputy attorney general --
and whether he wrote the Comey memo without sufficient concern as to how it might be used. "The skills needed to be an effective
U.S. attorney are significantly different from the ones needed as deputy attorney general," one D.O.J. veteran says. "Being a straight
shooter is great, but you have a lot of other considerations in those top leadership positions."
Even with Mueller now overseeing the Russia investigation, Rosenstein's impact should be felt on two other crucial fronts.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with
Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to
drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein --
could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation.
Then there's the larger, murkier subject of leaks. After Trump apparently blabbed confidential, Israeli-developed intelligence
about the fight against ISIS to the Russians, conservative media outlets have been loudly calling for whoever tipped reporters to
the story be hunted down. As Maryland U.S. attorney, Rosenstein's highest-profile case was the prosecution of James "Hoss" Cartwright,
a retired four-star Marine general and a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cartwright was accused of disclosing
information about covert anti-Iranian operations to reporters; he was charged with lying about his conversations to F.B.I. investigators.
Rosenstein extracted a guilty plea from Cartwright and pushed for a two-year jail term.
Trump apparently told Comey he wanted reporters who'd received leaks locked up. And now the White House and Sessions are prioritizing
the pursuit of leakers. "It's almost as if people think they have a right to violate the law, and this has got to end, and probably
it will take some convictions to put an end to it," Sessions told Bill O'Reilly on Fox in March. Rosenstein, who is in charge of
the Justice Department's day-to-day operations, may be the one tasked with implementing a crackdown.
But the Trump-inflicted turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external,
more corrosive ways. "What happened with the president and the Russians the other day makes counterterrorism work even more difficult,"
says Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent who pursued the 9/11 attackers and now runs an international security firm.
"Early on, the
Israeli intelligence and military establishment warned the government about sharing intelligence with the White House for fear that
Trump would share it with the Russians, and that the Russians will share it with the Iranians. And then we've proved them right.
What I hear from people around the world, and from people who work for the U.S. overseas, is that the situation is chaotic. It's
becoming increasingly difficult for people in nati
If I had a dollar for every time I heard the words "special prosecutor" over the past week, I would have enough money to qualify
for a
cabinet position in the Trump Administration. Various Democratic
senators have been calling
for a special prosecutor whenever they can get close enough to a microphone. Last week, a number of state attorneys general
wrote
a joint letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein urging him to appoint an independent special prosecutor. The New York
Times Editorial Board
joined
the chorus a few days ago.
The idea of appointing a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation is not new. In March, a public opinion
poll suggested
that two-thirds of Americans supported the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was before Comey was fired, and before the
competing excuses for firing him that came from the White House and President Trump himself.
A few months ago, I
predicted that Trump might fire Comey. (I'm not happy I was right, and the writing on the wall was clear enough for anyone who
cared to look.) I thought back then that the only way to move forward with a credible investigation into Russia's involvement with
the last election would be to appoint a special counsel. What was a good idea then is a necessity now. It's not just because Trump
pulled the trigger on firing Comey. Although it's unusual, it's not illegal for a President
to fire an FBI Director. A President
can hire and fire executive branch officials as he sees fit. Read More
close dialog
close dialog And that's the problem. Trump can remove anyone and everyone holding a top position at
the Justice Department who may be involved in this investigation. Clearly, he's not been shy about sacking Justice Department officials.
Just ask Sally Yates
and Preet Bahrara , or the other 46 US Attorneys who were told to vacate their offices before sundown earlier this year. Views
on Comey's firing
Let's imagine for a minute that the people in charge decided that appointing a special prosecutor was the right thing to do.
This is how it would work . The attorney general (or the deputy attorney general in a case like this one, where the attorney
general recuses himself) has the discretion to appoint a "special counsel" when: (1) a criminal investigation is warranted; (2) there
is a potential conflict of interest if the Justice Department conducted the investigation, or there are "extraordinary circumstances"
present; and (3) it would be in the public interest to appoint a special counsel. The decision by the deputy attorney general to
appoint (or not appoint) a special counsel is not be reviewable.
Although political and public pressure can certainly influence the decision, it's entirely up to Rosenstein to do it or not. I
know that, according to sources cited by CNN,
Rosenstein doesn't
see the need for a special counsel at this point. He's wrong. It doesn't really matter if there is nothing to the allegations
of Russia's meddling in the election or collusion with the Trump team. At this point, there is so much distrust and skepticism about
the process itself that there needs to be an independent prosecutor looking into these allegations just to assure the country that
the President and his associates did not commit a crime. Rosenstein shouldn't get any friction from his boss.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has publicly
recused himself from any investigation dealing with Russian meddling, and Sessions
had no problem with the
idea of a special prosecutor when the potential target was Hillary Clinton. I recognize that there are legitimate arguments against
the appointment of a special counsel. The process can be expensive, lack clear direction, last for a year or more, and is not guaranteed
to reach any meaningful conclusions. But the benefits of appointing a special counsel in this case greatly outweigh the potential
downsides. Although no one has asked me (and no one probably will), I know just the person for the job: Larry Thompson, a former
deputy attorney general and former US attorney in Republican administrations.
He has extensive private sector experience, and is currently trusted by a federal court to oversee Volkswagen's compliance with
criminal sanctions related to its emissions scandal. He is a loyal Republican and
a supporter of Sessions , so the GOP couldn't credibly claim he's politically biased. More importantly, he's well-respected,
extremely competent, and experienced in complex criminal investigations.
Whether it's Larry Thompson or someone else, a special prosecutor should be appointed to take over this investigation. If Rosenstein
is the man everyone
says he is ,
I believe he will appoint a qualified, independent prosecutor to take over this mess of an investigation. Mr. Rosenstein, the ball
is in your court. Don't let America down.
"... At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel, saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance. ..."
"... Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney, he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater. ..."
"... Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas. ..."
Atty. Gen.
Jeff Sessions
recused himself from the Russia investigation in March after news reports revealed he had failed to tell his
Senate
confirmation hearing about his meetings last year with Russia's ambassador to the U.S.
Rosenstein, a veteran prosecutor who had been serving as the U.S. attorney for Maryland, was confirmed as the No. 2 by the Senate
the following month.
That put him in charge of the investigation into whether current or former aides to
President Trump
coordinated with Russia during the 2016 campaign.
What is Rosenstein's role in the Russia probe?
It will fall to Rosenstein to decide whether to file criminal charges against any of Trump's aides, to drop the case entirely
or to hand it off to an independent prosecutor.
At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel,
saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance.
But he said he had "no reason to doubt" the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian authorities sought to influence
the presidential race. He also said he believed the
Justice
Department could handle the most politically complicated cases without fear of compromise.
Rosenstein laid out the case for Comey to be removed in a three-page memo that the White House released Tuesday.
In firing Comey, Trump had said he acted on Rosenstein's recommendation.
In a memorandum to Sessions, Rosenstein harshly criticized Comey for actions going back to last July, when he held a news conference
to announce that the FBI would not seek charges against presidential candidate and former Secretary of State
Hillary
Clinton in the email investigation but denounced her conduct.
That was a serious misjudgment, Rosenstein wrote, adding, "The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our
thoughts at a press conference."
He went on to say that Comey had made the problems worse with his decision to disclose in late October -- 11 days before the election
-- that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Clinton after finding State Department emails on a computer belonging to former
Rep.
Anthony
Weiner , the estranged husband of Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
.
Reports have since come out that Rosenstein threatened to resign over the way the Comey dismissal was attributed in part to the
memo.
As Sessions' top deputy, Rosenstein is responsible for using Justice Department resources to step up enforcement of immigration
laws, a Trump administration priority.
Sessions already has instructed all U.S. attorney's offices to be more aggressive about filing criminal charges against people
who cross the border illegally, and he has threatened to cut off department grants to so-called sanctuary cities unless they cooperate
with immigration agents.
[Sessions] picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how cases are decided, and should be decided.
-- Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general from 1994-1997
How did he become deputy attorney general?
The Senate voted overwhelmingly last month to confirm Rod J. Rosenstein as the No. 2 official at the Justice Department.
Rosenstein, 52, won unusual bipartisan support on the strength of his crime-fighting efforts as the U.S. attorney for Maryland
for the last 12 years. He was confirmed as deputy attorney general by a vote of 94 to 6.
Where did he get his start?
Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney,
he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution.
He first was nominated to the post by President George W. Bush. President Obama kept him on after the Senate did not move on Bush's
previous nomination of Rosenstein for a seat on a federal appeals court.
In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their
investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater.
Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others
were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas.
Jamie Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 under the Clinton administration, praised Rosenstein at
a recent ethics conference.
She said the department would remain in experienced hands. Sessions "picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how
cases are decided, and should be decided," she said.
Special prosecutor was appointed. But not the one that Ben Domenech expected. Still a very
interesting detail is this article is that Comey seems to be very well informed about this
mechanism and used it himself. So "special prosecutor gambit" was played by an experienced chess
player with full support from intelligence agencies and within certain circle of high level
officials within FBI and Justice department.
Notable quotes:
"... This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey, the current director of the FBI. ..."
We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. The current system that is so
obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot. With the race for the Democratic
nomination effectively concluded, Hillary Clinton now awaits the endorsement of President Obama , which they expect to come
within the next few weeks. Obama is poised to play
a big role in Clinton's campaign against Donald Trump, acting as an emissary to groups and
audiences that have been more reluctant to support Clinton in the past. But this creates its
own set of problems: namely, that the FBI under the auspices of Obama's administration is also
actively investigating Clinton's email server and her mishandling of classified
information.
It's hard to see any way that a conclusion reached under people like Loretta Lynch, serving
at the pleasure of a president advocating vociferously for Clinton's election, would be seen as
treating the candidate fairly. Even if Clinton is cleared, a dark cloud will hang over the
process. And Clinton herself should not be comfortable with the prospect of a process Trump
will certainly denounce as crooked, especially considering that many Americans would likely
agree with him.
Rather than deal with the typical rhetorical battles over this issue that have played out on
cable television over the past year, Republicans in Washington should cite historical precedent
in this context. Back in 2003, when a top presidential appointee was suspected of mishandling
classified information, that president's attorney general recused himself from the matter. A
special prosecutor was appointed to investigate the allegations and determine if prosecution
was warranted. That prosecutor investigated the case, brought charges, and obtained a
conviction.
This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House
official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a
jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey,
the current director of the FBI.
John Aschroft, the attorney general under George W. Bush, had the good sense to recuse
himself from the matter and appoint Comey to make the decision about how the case ought to
proceed. Ashcroft knew his own involvement would only taint whatever decision was finally made.
So he removed entirely the possibility of political interference by recusing himself. As a
Senator, Barack Obama hailed the verdict in that
case and the process that led to it.
Republicans ought to demand that Loretta Lynch do the same thing Obama's current FBI
director did when he worked at the Department of Justice in 2003: appoint a special
prosecutor.
If Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong, if no laws were broken, no classified information was
mishandled, and no American men and women were put at risk as a result of her actions, then she
has nothing to fear from an independent investigation of her activities. Where she stands right
now is the worst of all worlds: she could still be prosecuted by FBI/DOJ, but if she's not,
everyone will assume that political interference saved her. She can never get out from under
that cloud, no matter what happens.
An independent prosecutor, however, can put all of that to rest. If he or she finds evidence
of any crimes, then the case will be prosecuted. And if the prosecutor decides not to charge,
we'll know that it wasn't a political decision.
This is actually the best of all worlds for Hillary, because it actually gives her the
opportunity to clear her name, if she's innocent. It also happens to be the best solution for
the American public. We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. We deserve a
law enforcement system that actually enforces the law. A special prosecutor can deliver it. The
current system that is so obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot.
Ben Domenech is the publisher
of The Federalist. Sign up for a free trial of his daily newsletter, The Transom.
"... Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment and dissonance. ..."
"... The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it, which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed, they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time. ..."
"... Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining 20% truth was twisted beyond recognition. ..."
"... There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. ..."
FRIDAY WAS ONE of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN,
with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the
end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation's largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely
false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.
The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11 a.m. EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly
hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign,
even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the
world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the
U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an "arm of Russian intelligence," and therefore , so does the U.S. media.
This entire revelation was based on an email
which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named "Michael J.
Erickson" -- someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify -- to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption
key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had "uploaded." The email was a smoking gun, in CNN's extremely excited mind, because
it was dated September 4 -- 10 days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online -- and thus proved that
the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.
It's impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it's necessary to watch it
for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering
a near-fatal blow on the Trump/Russia collusion story:
There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after
CNN broadcast its story -- and then hyped it over and over and over -- the Washington Post
reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.
The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 -- which means it was sent after WikiLeaks
had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, "Michael
J. Erickson" was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available
DNC emails that WikiLeaks -- as everyone by then already knew -- had
publicly promoted . In other words, the
email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.
The real cartoon network if you ask me. Once people blow it, their public character becomes that of a cartoon character. Franken,
Conyers, Hillary, Weinstein and the Weiners. Why is CNN and liberal media exempt? Oh. They aren't.
Kudos to Greenwald for calling the US media out on this occasion, but in reality the US media humiliates itself weekly, if not
daily, if not hourly, with its false reports, poorly concealed agenda and generally propagandistic approach to everything.
Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also
naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to
a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment
and dissonance.
The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it,
which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their
reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed,
they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time.
Yes. Most of our fellows are willfully ignorant cowards. I also believe that many cope by turning on Confederate statues, getting
worked up over bathrooms, etc.
Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite
rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating
country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining
20% truth was twisted beyond recognition.
The media has become a "fifth column" of the government and is not to be trusted.
To our advantage, we now have the internet, which gives the ability for ordinary citizens to be real "journalists", quite often
getting and reporting the story TRUTHFULLY before the mainstream media.
In fact, there are calls by "mainstream media" to "license" journalists, in an attempt to keep these "citizen journalists" out
twenty years ago, any journalist suggesting such a scheme would have been thrown out, but nowadays
But do they really watch the TV? The news shows are terrible for getting a coherent message across.
There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is
up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news.
In an hour of a news show its probably 15 minutes, broken into 1 minute segments of actual news. The rest is just flashing
lights and ads and what news will be next. Except for PBS and NPR of course which are just liberal propaganda. Democracy Now,
Charlie Rose, Travis Smiley have fewer ads, but who can listen to them or look at them? I'd like to smash Charley Rose' sanctimonious
face. And Amy Goodman, why women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold elected or appointed office.
It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure
out what they are blathering about.
It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure
out what they are blathering about.
I agree but I'm not sure it would take patience so much as total lack of self respect as well as a hopeless amount of gullibility.
Speaking of ads
for I knew nothing of the facts. I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they
contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Nathaniel Macon
Monticello, January 12, 1819
"... "To test the possibility of a mutual agreement, Putin dispatched Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov to Washington for a July 17 meeting with Under Secretary Tom Shannon, the No. 3 official at the State Department. The official US account of the meeting offered only a bland summary of conversations on "areas of mutual concern." But three US administration officials, including one inside the meeting, said Ryabkov handed over a document containing a bold proposal: A sweeping noninterference agreement between Moscow and Washington that would prohibit both governments from meddling in the other's domestic politics. ..."
"... After examining the proposal, which has not previously been reported, US officials told Moscow there would be no deal. ..."
"... "We said 'thank you very much but now is not the time for this,'" said a senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic discussions." ..."
"To test the possibility of a mutual agreement, Putin dispatched Deputy Foreign
Minister Sergei Ryabkov to Washington for a July 17 meeting with Under Secretary Tom Shannon,
the No. 3 official at the State Department. The official US account of the meeting offered
only a bland summary of conversations on "areas of mutual concern." But three US
administration officials, including one inside the meeting, said Ryabkov handed over a
document containing a bold proposal: A sweeping noninterference agreement between Moscow and
Washington that would prohibit both governments from meddling in the other's domestic
politics.
After examining the proposal, which has not previously been reported, US officials
told Moscow there would be no deal.
"We said 'thank you very much but now is not the time for this,'" said a senior State
Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic
discussions."
Here you have it – a self-confession from the highest D.C. officials, that
"democracy promotion = meddling in the elections"! Oh, but that's not all:
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
"... A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests. ..."
"... Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles. Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners. ..."
"... Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing. ..."
"... Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for "successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia. ..."
"... The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials say they want a third party. ..."
"... According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy. ..."
"... The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence agencies were in essence created to protect. ..."
"... There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin. ..."
"... But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't follow the mainstream herd and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines. ..."
"... the European Union is spending 3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media. ..."
"... Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for it, was kicked off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show on Radio Sputnik . ..."
"... At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak. ..."
"... Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies, Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic emails ..."
"... As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia. But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce." ..."
"... There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign donations. But even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people those issues were not considered decisive in the campaign. ..."
"... As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate. ..."
"... RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets, which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns about Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself. ..."
"... Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans" along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media. ..."
"... Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption and subversion. Russians appreciate that. ..."
"... It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles. Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers. ..."
"... And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state? ..."
"... Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However, everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true". ..."
Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American
plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on
RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe.
I know because I was a victim of it.
At the end of October, I wrote an
article for Consortium
News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became
the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First
was former British spy Christopher Steele's
largely unverified
dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery
of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used
faulty software
it was later forced to
rewrite
. The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.
My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical
tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism
and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.
After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the
article on the HuffPost, which was
rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006,
I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost
editors retracted
the article without any explanation.
Like the word "fascism," "censorship" is an over-used and mis-used accusation, and I usually avoid using it. But without any explanation,
I could only conclude that the decision to retract was political, not editorial.
I am non-partisan as I oppose both major parties for failing to represent millions of Americans' interests. I follow facts where
they lead. In this case, the facts led to an understanding that the Jan. 6 FBI/NSA/CIA intelligence
"assessment" on alleged Russian election interference,
prepared by what then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts, was based substantially on unvetted
opposition research and speculation, not serious intelligence work.
The assessment even made the point that the analysts were not asserting that the alleged Russian interference was a fact. The
report contained this disclaimer: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments
are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Under deadline pressure on Jan. 6, Scott Shane of The New York Times instinctively wrote what many readers of the report
must have been thinking: "What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to
back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially
amounts to 'trust us.'"
Yet, after the Jan. 6 report was published, leading Democrats asserted falsely that the "assessment" represented the consensus
judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies not just the views of "hand-picked" analysts from three and much of the U.S. mainstream
media began treating the allegations of Russian "hacking" as fact, not as an uncertain conclusion denied by both the Russian government
and WikiLeaks, which insists that it did not get the two batches of Democratic emails from the Russian government.
Yet, because of the oft-repeated "17 intelligence agencies" canard and the mainstream media's over-hyped reporting, the public
impression has built up that the accusations against Russia are indisputable. If you ask a Russia-gate believer today what their
faith is based on, they will invariably point to the Jan. 6 assessment and mock anyone who still expresses any doubt.
For instance, an unnamed former CIA officer
toldThe Intercept
last month, "You've got all these intelligence agencies saying the Russians did the hack. To deny that is like coming out with the
theory that the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor."
That the supposedly dissident Intercept would use this quote is instructive about how unbalanced the media's reporting
on Russia-gate has been. We have film of Japanese planes attacking Pearl Harbor and American ships burning and we have eyewitness
accounts of thousands of U.S. soldiers and sailors. Yet, on Russia-gate, we have only the opinions of "hand-picked" intelligence
officials who themselves admit their opinions aren't fact. No serious editor would allow a self-interested and unnamed source to
equate Russia-gate and Pearl Harbor in print.
In this atmosphere, it was easy for HuffPost editors to hear complaints from readers and blithely ban my story. But before
it was pulled, 125 people had shared it. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, then took up my cause, being the first to write about
the HuffPost censorship on his
blog. McGovern included a link to a .pdf file that I captured of the
censored
HuffPost story. It has since been republished on numerous
otherwebsites.
Journalist Max Blumenthal tweeted about
it. British filmmaker and writer Tariq Ali
posted it on
his Facebook page. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams
interviewed
me at length about the censorship on their TV program. ZeroHedge wrote a widely shared
piece and someone actually took the time, 27 minutes and 13 seconds to be exact, to read the entire article on YouTube. I began
a petition to HuffPost
's Polgreen to either explain the retraction or restore the article. It has gained more than 2,000 signatures so far. If a serious
fact-check analysis was made of my article, it must exist and can and should be produced.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take
up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union
rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals
in such situations on principle, not preference.
In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether
Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it.
I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.
One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked
the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that
"Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually
inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for
"any reason," including, apparently, censorship.
Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement
on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact
me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost
and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.
BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though
the accusations not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed
reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most
ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian
consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became
clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.
That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with
Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference,
he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious
accusations, he angrily cut off debate.
When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled.
True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination
of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.
This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith
challenged.
But the HuffPos t's action is hardly isolated. It is part of a rapidly growing landscape of censorship of news critical
of American corporate and political leaders who are trying to defend themselves from an increasingly angry population. It's a story
as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge of how the elite gain
at the others' expense, at home and abroad.
A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that
have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown
tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests.
America's bipartisan rulers are threatened by popular discontent from both left and right. They were alarmed by the Bernie Sanders
insurgency and by Donald Trump's victory, even if Trump is now betraying the discontented masses who voted for him by advancing tax
and health insurance plans designed to further crush them and benefit the rich.
Trump's false campaign promises will only make the rulers' problem of controlling a restless population more difficult. Americans
are subjected to economic inequality greater than in the first Gilded Age. They are also subjected today to more war than in the
first Gilded Age, which led to the launch of American overseas empire. Today American rulers are engaged in multiple conflicts following
decades of post-World War II invasions and coups to expand their global interests.
People with wealth and power always seem to be nervous about losing both. So plutocrats use the concentrated media they own to
suppress news critical of their wars and domestic repression. For example, almost nothing was reported about militarized police forces
until the story broke out into the open in the Ferguson protests and now the story has been buried again.
Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles.
Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report
from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners.
To operate in this media structure, most journalists know to excise out the historical context of America's wars of domination.
They know to uncritically accept American officials' bromides about spreading democracy, while hiding the real war aims.
Examples abound: America's
role in the Ukraine coup was denied or downplayed; a British parliamentary report exposing American lies that led to the destruction
of Libya was suppressed
; and most infamously, the media promoted the WMD hoax and the fable of "bringing democracy" to Iraq, leading to the illegal invasion
and devastation of that country. A recent example from November is a 60 Minutesreport on the Saudi
destruction of Yemen, conspicuously failing to mention America's crucial role in the carnage.
I've pitched numerous news stories critical of U.S. foreign policy to a major American newspaper that were rejected or changed
in the editorial process. One example is the declassified Defense Intelligence Agency
document of August 2012 that accurately predicted the rise of the Islamic State two years later.
The document, which I confirmed with a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. and its Turkish, European and Gulf Arab allies, were
supporting the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria to put pressure on the Syrian government, but the document
warned that this Salafist base could turn into an "Islamic State."
But such a story would undermine the U.S. government's "war on terrorism" narrative by revealing that the U.S.-backed strategy
actually was risking the expansion of jihadist-held territory in Syria. The story was twice rejected by my editors and to my knowledge
has never appeared in corporate media.
Another story rejected in June 2012, just a year into the Syrian war, was about Russia's motives in Syria being guided by a desire
to defeat the growing jihadist threat there. Corporate media wanted to keep the myth of Russia's "imperial" aims in Syria alive.
I had to publish the article
outside the U.S., in a South African daily newspaper.
In September 2015 at the U.N. General Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin
confirmed my story about
Russia's motives in Syria to stop jihadists from taking over. Putin invited the U.S. to join this effort as Moscow was about to launch
its military intervention at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration, still insisting on "regime change"
in Syria, refused. And the U.S. corporate media continued promoting the myth that Russia intervened to recapture its "imperial glory."
It was much easier to promote the "imperial" narrative than report Putin's clear
explanation to French TV channel TF1, which was not picked
up by American media.
"Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organizations were destroyed as states by our Western
partners' forces?" Putin said. "These states showed no signs of terrorism. They were not a threat for Paris, for the Cote d'Azur,
for Belgium, for Russia, or for the United States. Now, they are the source of terrorist threats. Our goal is to prevent the same
from happening in Syria."
But don't take Putin's word for it. Then Secretary of State John Kerry knew why Russia intervened. In a
leaked audio conversation with Syrian opposition figures
in September 2016, Kerry said: "The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the possibility
of going to Damascus, and that's why Russia came in because they didn't want a Daesh government and they supported Assad."
Kerry admitted that rather than seriously fight the Islamic State in Syria, the U.S. was ready to use its growing strength to
pressure Assad to resign, just as the DIA document that I was unable to report said it would. "We know that this was growing, we
were watching, we saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably
manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him." Kerry's comment suggests that the
U.S. was willing to risk the Islamic State and its jihadist allies gaining power in order to force out Assad.
Where are independent-minded Western journalists to turn if their stories critical of the U.S. government and corporations are
suppressed? The imperative is to get these stories out and Russian media has provided an opening. But this has presented a new
problem for the plutocracy. The suppression of critical news in their corporate-owned media is no longer working if it's seeping
out in Russian media and through dissident Western news sites.
Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and
viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing.
As a Russian-government-financed English-language news channel, RT also gives a Russian perspective on the news, the way CNN and
The New York Times give an American perspective and the BBC a British one. American mainstream journalists, from my experience,
arrogantly deny suppressing news and believe they present a universal perspective, rather than a narrow American view of the world.
The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media although
the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points of view. It's
impossible to do so without those voices included. Routinely or systematically shutting them out also dehumanizes people in those
countries, making it easier to gain popular support to go to war against them.
Russia is scapegoated by charging that RT or Sputnik are sowing divisions in the U.S. by focusing on issues like homelessness,
racism, or out-of-control militarized police forces, as if these divisive issues didn't already exist. The U.S. mainstream media
also seems to forget that the U.S. government has engaged in at least 70 years of interference in other countries' elections, foreign
invasions, coups, planting stories in foreign media and cyber-warfare, which Russian media crucially points out.
Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for
"successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully
democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia.
The overriding point about the "Russian propaganda" complaint is that when America's democratic institutions, including the press
and the electoral process, are crumbling under the weight of corruption that the American elites have created or maintained, someone
else needs to be blamed.
The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an
attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of
all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials
say they
want a third party.
According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views
of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and
civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy.
The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political
protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence
agencies were in essence created to protect.
There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that
long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under
the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader
in Moscow. There is substance
to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin.
Moscow sees an aggressive America expanding NATO and putting 30,000 NATO troops on its borders; trying to overthrow a secular
ally in Syria with terrorists who threaten Russia itself; backing a coup in Ukraine as a possible prelude to moves against Russia;
and using American NGOs to foment unrest inside Russia before they were forced to register as foreign agents.
The Constitution prohibits government from prior-restraint, or censorship, though such tactics were imposed, largely unchallenged,
during the two world wars. American newspapers voluntarily agreed to censor themselves in the Second World War before the government
dictated it.
In the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur said he didn't "desire to reestablish wartime censorship" and instead asked the press
for self-censorship. He largely got it until the papers began reporting American battlefield losses. On July 25, 1950, "the army
ordered that reporters were not allowed to publish 'unwarranted' criticism of command decisions, and that the army would be 'the
sole judge and jury' on what 'unwarranted' criticism entailed," according to a Yale University
study on military censorship.
After excellent on-the-ground reporting from Vietnam brought the war home to America, the military reacted by instituting, initially
in the first Gulf War, serious control of the press by "embedding" reporters from private media companies. They accepted the arrangement,
much as World War II newspapers censored themselves.
It is important to realize that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, including the media. It is not illegal
for them to practice censorship. I never made a First Amendment argument against the HuffPost , for instance. However, under
pressure from Washington, even in peacetime, media companies can do the government's dirty work to censor or limit free speech for
the government.
In the past few weeks, we've seen an acceleration of attempts by corporations to inhibit Russian media in the U.S. Both Google
and Facebook, which dominate the Web with more than 50 percent of ad revenue, were at first resistant to government pressure to censor
"Russian propaganda." But they are coming around.
Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google's parent company,
said on Nov. 18 that Google would "derank" articles from RT and Sputnik in the Google searches, making the stories harder for
readers to find. The billionaire Schmidt claimed Russian information can be "repetitive, exploitative, false, [or] likely to have
been weaponized," he said. That is how factual news critical of U.S. corporate and political leadership is seen by them: as a weapon
threatening their rule.
"My own view is that these patterns can be detected, and that they can be taken down or deprioritized," Schmidt said. Though Google would essentially be hiding news produced by RT and Sputnik , Schmidt is sensitive to the charge of censorship,
even though there's nothing legally to stop him. "We don't want to ban the sites. That's not how we operate," Schmidt said cynically. "I am strongly not in favor of censorship.
I am very strongly in favor of ranking. It's what we do."
But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't
follow the mainstream herd and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western
narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off
of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines.
Responding to a deadline from Congress to act, Facebook on Nov. 22 announced that it would inform users if they have been "targeted"
by Russian "propaganda." Facebook's help center will tell users if they liked or shared ads allegedly from the St. Petersburg-based
Internet Research Agency, which supposedly bought $100,000 in ads over a two-year period, with more than half these ads coming after
the 2016 U.S. election and many not related to politics.
The $100,000 sum over two years compares to Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue. Plus, Facebook only says it "believes" or
it's "likely" that the ads came from that firm, whose links to the Kremlin also have yet to be proved.
Facebook described the move as "part of our ongoing effort to protect our platforms and the people who use them from bad actors
who try to undermine our democracy." Congress wants more from Facebook, so it will not be surprising if users will eventually be
alerted to Russian media reports as "propaganda" in the future.
While the government can't openly shut down a news site, the Federal Communications Commission's
upcoming vote on whether to deregulate
the Internet by ending net neutrality will free private Internet companies in the U.S. to further marginalize Russian and dissident
websites by slowing them down and thus discouraging readers from viewing them.
Likewise, as the U.S. government doesn't want to be openly seen shutting down RT operations, it is working around the edges to
accomplish that.
After the Department of Justice forced, under threat of arrest, RT to register its employees as foreign agents under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act , State Department spokeswoman Heather Nuaert said that "FARA does not police the content of information
disseminated, does not limit the publication of information or advocacy materials, and does not restrict an organization's ability
to operate." She'd earlier said that registering would not "impact or affect the ability of them to report news and information.
We just have them register. It's as simple as that."
The day after Nuaert spoke the Congressional press office
stripped RT correspondents of their
Capitol Hill press passes, citing the FARA registration. "The rules of the Galleries state clearly that news credentials may not
be issued to any applicant employed 'by any foreign government or representative thereof.' Upon its registration as a foreign agent
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), RT Network became ineligible to hold news credentials," read the letter to RT.
But Russia-gate faithful ignore these aggressive moves and issue calls for even harsher action. After forcing RT to register,
Keir Giles, a Chatham House senior consulting fellow, acted as though it never happened. He said in a Council on Foreign Relations
Cyber Brief on Nov. 27: "Although the Trump administration seems unlikely to pursue action against Russian information operations,
there are steps the U.S. Congress and other governments should consider."
I commented on this development on RT America. It would
also have been good to have the State Department's Nuaert answer for this discrepancy about the claim that forced FARA registrations
would not affect news gathering when it already has. My criticism of RT is that they should be interviewing U.S. decision-makers
to hold them accountable, rather than mostly guests outside the power structure. The decision-makers could be called out on air if
they refuse to appear.
Western rulers' wariness about popular unrest can be seen in the extraordinary and scurrilous attack on the Canadian website
globalresearch.ca . It began with a chilling study by the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization into the relatively obscure website, followed by a vicious
hit piece
on Nov. 18 by the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest newspaper. The headline was: "How a Canadian website is being used to amplify
the Kremlin's view of the world."
"What once appeared to be a relatively harmless online refuge for conspiracy theorists is now seen by NATO's information warfare
specialists as a link in a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media as well as the North American
and European public's trust in government and public institutions," the Globe and Mail reported.
"Global Research is viewed by NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence or
StratCom as playing a
key accelerant role in helping popularize articles with little basis in fact that also happen to fit the narratives being pushed
by the Kremlin, in particular, and the Assad regime." The website never knew it had such powers. I've not agreed with everything I've read on the site. But it is a useful clearinghouse for alternative media. Numerous Consortium News articles are republished there, including a handful of mine. But the site's typical sharing and
reposting on the Internet is seen by NATO as a plot to undermine the Free World.
"It uses that reach to push not only its own opinion pieces, but 'news' reports from little-known websites that regularly carry
dubious or false information," the he Globe and Mail reported. " At times, the site's regular variety of international-affairs
stories is replaced with a flurry of items that bolster dubious reportage with a series of opinion pieces, promoted on social media
and retweeted and shared by active bots."
The newspaper continued, "'That way, they increase the Google ranking of the story and create the illusion of multi-source verification,'
said Donara Barojan, who does digital forensic research for [StratCom]. But she said she did not yet have proof that Global Research
is connected to any government."
This sort of smear is nothing more than a blatant attack on free speech by the most powerful military alliance in the world, based
on the unfounded conviction that Russia is a fundamental force for evil and that anyone who has contacts with Russia or shares even
a part of its multilateral world view is suspect.
Such tactics are spreading to Europe. La Repubblica newspaper in Italy wrote a similar hit piece against
L'Antidiplomatico, a dissident website. And the European Union is spending
3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media.
High-profile individuals in the U.S. are also now in the crosshairs of the neo-McCarthyite witch hunt. On Nov. 25 The Washington
Post ran a nasty hit piece on Washington Capitals' hockey player Alex Ovechkin, one of the most revered sports figures in the
Washington area, simply because he, like
86 percent of other Russians , supports his president.
"Alex Ovechkin is one of Putin's biggest fans. The question is, why?" ran the headline. The story insidiously implied that Ovechkin
was a dupe of his own president, being used to set up a media campaign to support Putin, who is under fierce and relentless attack
in the United States where Ovechkin plays professional ice hockey.
"He has given an unwavering endorsement to a man who U.S. intelligence agencies say sanctioned Russian meddling in last year's
presidential election," write the Post reporters, once again showing their gullibility to U.S. intelligence agencies that have provided
no proof for their assertions (and even admit that they are not asserting their opinion as fact).
Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for
it, was
kicked
off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show
on Radio Sputnik .
At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist
Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to
prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled
territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak.
But as a consequence the club director said its funding was slashed from the Swiss government.
Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate
media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies,
Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and
lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic
emails.
There will likely be more indictments from Mueller, even perhaps a complaint about Trump committing obstruction of justice because
he said on TV that he fired Comey, in part, because of the "Russia thing." But Trump's clumsy reaction to the "scandal," which he
calls "fake news" and a "witch hunt," still is not proof that Putin and the Russians interfered in the U.S. election to achieve the
unlikely outcome of Trump's victory.
The Russia-gate faithful assured us to wait for the indictment of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, briefly Trump's national security
adviser. But again there was nothing about pre-election "collusion," only charges that Flynn had lied to the FBI about conversations
with the Russian ambassador regarding policy matters during the presidential transition, i.e., after the election.
One of Flynn's conversations was about trying unsuccessfully to comply with an Israeli request to get Russia to block a United
Nations resolution censuring Israel's settlements on Palestinian land.
As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia.
But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce."
The media is becoming a victim of its own mania. In its zeal to push this story reporters are making a
huge number of amateurish mistakes on stories that are later corrected. Brian Ross of ABC News was
suspended for erroneously reporting that Trump had told Flynn to contact the Russians before the election, and not after.
There remain a number of key hurdles to prove the Russia-gate story. First, convincing evidence is needed that the Russian government
indeed did "hack" the Democratic emails, both those of the DNC and Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and gave them to WikiLeaks.
Then it must be linked somehow to the Trump campaign. If it were a Russian hack it would have been an intelligence operation on a
need-to-know basis, and no one in the Trump team needed to know. It's not clear how any campaign member could have even helped with
an overseas hack or could have been an intermediary to WikiLeaks.
There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC
tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street,
which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign
donations. But even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people those issues were not
considered decisive in the campaign.
Clinton principally pinned her loss on FBI Director James Comey for closing and then reopening the investigation into her
improper use of a private email server while Secretary of State. She also spread the blame to
Russia (repeating
the canard about "seventeen [U.S. intelligence] agencies, all in agreement"), Bernie Sanders, the inept DNC and other factors.
As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor
in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate.
That RT and Sputnik ran pieces critical of Hillary
Clinton was their right, and they were hardly alone. RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to
Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets,
which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns
about Clinton's private email server.
Another vague Russia-gate suspicion stemming largely from Steele's opposition research is that somehow Russia bribed or blackmailed
Trump because of past business with Russians. But there are evidentiary and logical problems with these theories, since
some lucrative deals fell
through (and presumably wouldn't have if Trump was being paid off).
Some have questioned how Trump could have supported detente with Russia without being beholden to Moscow in some way. But Jeffrey
Sommers, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, wrote a
convincing essay explaining adviser Steve Bannon's influence
on Trump's thinking about Russia and the need for cooperation between the two powers to solve international problems.
Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid
the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself.
An earlier version of this story appeared onConsortium News.
Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and
the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR
Books in June 2017. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at
@unjoe .
But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is run by Lydia Polgreen,
a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April, she completely redesigned the
site and renamed it HuffPost.
" It's a story as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge
of how the elite gain at the others' expense, at home and abroad. "
This is exactly what Howard Zinn writes. Alas it is the same at this side of the Atlantic. The British newspaper Guardian was
independent, Soros bought it. Dutch official 'news' is just government propaganda.
But also most Dutch dicussion sites are severely biased, criticism of Israel is next to impossible. And of course the words
'populist' and 'extreme right' are propaganda words, used for those who oppose mainstream politics: EU, euro, globalisation, unlimited
immigration, etc.
Despite all these measures and censorship, including self censorship, dissident political parties grow stronger and stronger.
One could see this in the French presidential elections, one sees it in Germany where AfD now is in parliament, the Reichstag,
one sees it in Austria, where the nationalist party got about half the votes, one sees it in countries as Poland and Hungary,
that want to keep their cultures. And of course there is Brexit 'we want our country back'.
In the Netherlands the in October 2016 founded party FvD, Forum for Democracy, got two seats in the last elections, but polls
show that if now elections were held, it would have some fourteen seats in our parliament of 150. The present ruling coalition,
led by Rutte, has very narrow margins, both in parliament and what here is called Eerste Kamer.
Parliament maybe can be seen as House, Eerste Kamer as Senate. There is a good chance that at the next Eerste Kamer elections
FvD will be able to end the reign of Rutte, who is, in my opinion, just Chairman of the Advance Rutte Foundation, and of course
a stiff supporter of Merkel and Brussels. Now that the end of Merkel is at the horizon, I'm curious how Rutte will manoevre.
"The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media
although the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points
of view" -- Joe Lauria
Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT
Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans"
along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media.
It"s true, of course, that the viewpoints of North Koreans go unreported in MSM, but that's hardly the "whole truth and nothing
but the truth." The problems confronting any journalist who might endeavor to report on public opinion in North Korea are incomparably
more difficult than the problems confronting attempts to report on public opinion in Iran, in Russia or in Palestine. These three
"theaters" -- so to speak each with its own challenges, no doubt, should never be conflated with the severe realities of censorship
and even forceful thought policing in North Korea.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined
to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil
Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely
to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.
I'm not even sure that they believe in Russia-gate. This could easily be cowardice or corruption. The globalists have poured
untold millions into "fixing" the Internet wrongthink so it's only natural that we're seeing results. I'm seeing "grassroots"
shilling everywhere, for instance.
This is not going to work for them. You can't force consent of the governed. The more you squeeze, the more sand slips through
your fingers.
It is worse than censorship. History, via web searches, are being deleted. Now, you have no hint what is missing. Example, in
1999 I read an article in a weekly tech newspaper maybe Information Week about university researchers who discovered that
64 bit encrypted phones were only using the first 56 bits and the last 8 were zeros. They suspected that the US government was
responsible. Cannot find any reference to that online.
Joe Lauria may very well be a "victim", but certainly not one that I would parade around as some USDA table grade poster child
victim of really egregious reprisals. He's a veteran in the establishment MSM milieu and certainly knew what kind of a shit bird
operation it is that he chose to attempt to publish his piece in.
Oh, lest I forget to mention, he didn't lose his livelihood, get ejected from his gym, have his country club membership revoked,
get banned from AirB&B ad nauseum.
It is an interesting article. I am curious about the '17 intellience agencies' thing, CIA, FBI, NSA, army and navy
intel units, well that is making five or so. The latter two would likely having no connection with checking the 'Russia was hacking
the election', likewise, air force sigint (which they obviously need and have). So, a list from a poster who is expert on the
topic, what are the seventeen agencies which were agreeing on vicious Vlad having 'hacked' poor Hillary's campaign?
Is anybody knowing? This is a very real, good, and serious question, from me, and have not seeing it before. Can anybody producing
a list of the seventeen agencies? Parodic replies welcome, but it would be of interest to many if somebody could making a list
of the seventeen lurching about in Hillary's addled mind.
We're witnessing a huge closing of the American Liberal secular mind. There used to be secular liberal hard copy magazines like
the Atlantic Magazine that published intelligent well written articles and commentary about foreign affairs, immigration, Islam
from a principled secular, Liberal perspective especially in the early 1990s. That's pretty much gone now as The Atlantic is
mostly just a blog that puts out the party line. There are still, thankfully a few exceptions like
Your article seemed otherwise good, but lacked any humor early on to keep me reading. After all, it is 6000 words! I have a job,
family, obligations, other readings, and only so much thinking energy in a day. I think You might try shortening such articles
to maybe 2000 3000 words? Like I said though, You did present some good ideas.
Mark James' modified limited hangout shows us the true purpose of his ICCPR-illegal statist war propaganda. James candidly jettisons
Hillary, acknowledging the obvious, that she was the more repulsive choice in this duel of the titans. But James is still hanging
on to the crucial residual message of the CIA line: Putin tripleplus bad.
Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize
him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's
cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats
CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption
and subversion. Russians appreciate that.
James fantasizes that Putin is going to get ousted and murdered. However Putin has public approval that US politicians couldn't
dream of. This is because Russia's government meets world human rights standards that the US fails to meet. The Russian government
complies with the Paris Principles, world standard for institutionalized human rights protection under expert international review.
The USA does not. The USA is simply not is Russia's league with respect to universally-acknowledged rights.
James can easily verify this by comparing the US human-rights deficiencies to corresponding Russian reviews, point-by-point,
based on each article of the core human rights conventions.
Comprehensive international human rights review shows that the USA is not in Russia's league. Look at the maps if you can't
be bothered to read the particulars they put the US in an underdeveloped backwater with headchopping Arab princelings and a
couple African presidents-for-life. CIA's INGSOC fixation on Putin is intended to divert your attention from the objectively superior
human-rights performance of the Russian government as a whole, and the USA's failure and disgrace in public in Geneva, front of
the whole world.
How did this happen? Turns out, dismantling the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now we see it's time to take the USA apart
and do the same for America. That's the origin of the panic you can smell on the CIA regime.
There is censorship on blogs.
> I have been banned from The Atlantic blog for correcting a noted anti-Iran blogger.
> I have been banned from the National Interest blog for highlighting Pentagon's acquisition problems.
> I have been banned by Facebook for declaring that females don't belong in the infantry. I "violated community standards" with
my opinion which was based somewhat on my time in the infantry, which my PC critic probably lacked.
In hindsight I wish I would have made a list of sites where I was banned, some of them several times. In the USA Washpost and
Christian Science Monitor, both sites were abolished, I suppose because censorship and banning became too expensive.
In UK War Without End was was one of the very few sites where was no censorship, UK laws forced the owner to close down. The
site was near impossible to hack, the owner had a hand built interface in Linux between incoming messages and the site itself.
At present there is not one more or less serious Dutch site where I can write.
On top of that, most Dutch sites no longer exist, especially those operated by newspapers.
It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the
prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence
of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles.
Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers.
Your post is exactly what I wanted to write. Saved me the effort. I figured out the MSM was nothing but lies around 1966. I
have no sympathy for any MSM journalist.
Wouldn't it be scary if a nation's central bank was controlled and run by a group pretending to be loyal to their host nation,
but was actually in league with a nation that was trying to gobble up huge chunks of ME land, doing this by controlling the host
nation's media outlets, and forever posting psyop stories and actual lies to support the land thefts?
And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would
then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip
of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more
wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state?
Yes, it would be scary to live in a tyrant state like that.
Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However,
everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true".
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better
protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky rather than a crusading lawyer was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment faced with Browder's legal threats the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many peoplecorporate executives, governments, journalists, politiciansafraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer Jewish on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from
viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that
almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his
employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented
a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death
in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S.
Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called
the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance
of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and after supposedly uncovering evidence
of the fraud Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison
where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative the dramatic tale became
a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of
President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov
even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected
turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a
corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky
rather than a crusading lawyer was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what
he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from
a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Blocked Premiere
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" and it was set for
a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment faced with Browder's legal threats
the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part,
brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she
was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The
Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the
sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian
government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump
campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky
Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One
source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump
Tower with Trump's son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's
blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the
Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm
the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations
in the past.
Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams,
the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times
added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven
forbid!
One-Time Showing
So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion
moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially
shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment
of the New Cold War.
Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.
After the Newseum presentation,
a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing
his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov
of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder
and the Magnitsky Act."
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and
action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea
for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic.
But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly
sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television
networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.
"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully
exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."
The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you
might read in a totalitarian
society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for
saying something that almost no one heard.
New Paradigm
The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm
in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives
on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about
"Russian propaganda" and "fake
news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets
eagerly awaiting algorithms
that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such
as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of
Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I
was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was.
I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good
example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film
now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the
White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Why are so many peoplecorporate executives, governments, journalists, politiciansafraid of William Browder? Why isn't
Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You
did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give
us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers
here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this
problem before.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet,
search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain
in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the
Russian financial crisis.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Abe and to escape U.S. taxes.
incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Well stated.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Parry,
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding
Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the
film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding
back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America
and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and
1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews.
I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into
accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars.
The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial,
at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life
as we know it, is appalling.
"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo
con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.
Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't
like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch,
the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks,
it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational
discussion here.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Dear orwell
re Anna
Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russiaas does the whole Jewish
Zionist crowd in the US.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely
deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker
just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the
Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless
I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal
sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all
seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that
route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information.
Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian
world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and
took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary
film product.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Drew good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier
to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and
strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am
BannanaBoat that too!
Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm
This is interesting:
"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary
of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank!
for which he was paid $500,000.
"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives
were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant
Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder,
a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance
officials, among others, participated in the fraud."
The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia
relations would suffer as a result."
"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some
past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl
clutching.
afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am
Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously
is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like
RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view,
as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm
"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical
blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein
and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a
body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better
indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.
Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical
premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of
Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic.
The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and
decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed
in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those
who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet
nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of
'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments
and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments
of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'
'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach
to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia
NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should
have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to
them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the
most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into
Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly
citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia
NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made
on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where
the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's
statements appear factually sound."
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC,
as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders
aren't going to listen them?
Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site
where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain
historical events you've told us about.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very
hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive
that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.
A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in
the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in
Parliament.
A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never
once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern
about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Roger Annis just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger,
with a link to this article.
Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he
says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good
reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist that's an oxymoron.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also
a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state
assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution
(in name yes, but in fact not).
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm
ToivoS,
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets
blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting
is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly
believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented
as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm
Joe Average Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been
reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've
read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played
a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.
I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could
(with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is
getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a
stop to them.
Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer Jewish on the same project in an Engineering design and
construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial
institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work
place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going
on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All
the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years
starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt,
and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of
the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions
on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably
was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.
I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a
few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than
lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these
two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly
that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You
all have a nice Peacefull day
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am
Joe Average "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further
rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."
No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar
said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something
like 40 60 million died shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail
cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized
(sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online).
Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site
that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that
it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival
of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 1918)."
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered
too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here
without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart.
I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia
was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it
up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am
Dave P. I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like
it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up.
Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is
strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that
you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")
Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in
the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to
pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed
an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle
boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy,
confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount
of trouble it will stir up and probable repercussions are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating
where the victim who was probably trying something shady was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement
used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents
involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating
of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school
and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology
observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving
, caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the
materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance
is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
backwardsevolution,
thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described
as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading
"Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for
Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young
to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built
their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their
money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in
the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western
oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an
important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne
(Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of
the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar
to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller
started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few
dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst
the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism at least if
the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists
make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am
Joe Average somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for
the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others
are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running
out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery
and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks
that way.
Thanks, Joe.
Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for
over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish
family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the
Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to
his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different
ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated
the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony.
Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign
he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son,
Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the
first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish
ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8
when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King
of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united
it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into
France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the
Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock
together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian
Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies
(never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.
Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm
I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts instead of Ladies first.
backwardsevolution,
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred
Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the
latter book are directed at this one and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
Miranda Keefe,
I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added
the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended
to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point
that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields
such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual
production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you
could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision
money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress
Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates
back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have
the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants
/ money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't
face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even
the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal
position of the church in the
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable
art work also.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am
Cal read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow
to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings,
gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that
happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with
it?
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm
@ backwards
" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside
some loot for themselves.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Cal thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they
should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some
such belief.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight
into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something
like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society
from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one
extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying
the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the
pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with
Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would
have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia,
the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia
and China.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Big Brother at work always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us
to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know ..
(Virginia please notice my use of irony.)
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table?
Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your
not, what compromise with you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas
we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue
to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute,
but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Joe,
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we
in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm
This is where the Two Joe's are alike.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now,
those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is
just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of
the nightmare USA society has become.
ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!
John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in
the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be
a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm
"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy
of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains
a cherished value."
Abe "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by
lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached
by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what
the best constellation of players will be on this.
"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting
options, but I'm not going to name any names."
What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told
in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if
you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case
is the margin of error.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill
Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing
billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated
British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel,
to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection
come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum,
though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how
Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a
partner but also a mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party,
the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University,
the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that
seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
Abe what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire
in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races
again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside
information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As
the article says, he leaves a lot out.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University
The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University
Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or
abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not
claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar
offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts,
Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower
category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes
(mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).
Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of
financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish
mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history
books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the
Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin
let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing
Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin
lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel,
almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the
criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is
what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews.
I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do
not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious
Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am
" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians
and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various
publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival
Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave
one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris
Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She
was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice
of America.
HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings
were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut
everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages
until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled
in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial
section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy
tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on
radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks
who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls,
that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin
to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of
popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this
journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am
Hide Behind sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even
though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay,
enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya.
My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute
due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove
intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates
point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon
truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am
I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening
it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get
a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election.
Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute
Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody
looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under
control.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am
It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to
get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell
setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger
.she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
Joe
Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am
"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am
The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto
Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who
was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm
JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers
Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents
to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted
my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long
white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get
out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the
right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on
me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives
"play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever.
The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am
Sanford "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm
yessir, love it
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers
would still be most scary.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options,
have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs,
criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am
Abe wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the
NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary
loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE,
LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Language: English
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Cal that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing
but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll
cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there.
That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has
done a lot of good.
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior
White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's
ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner
"as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work
environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not
testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner
met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals."
Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before http://www.independent.co.uk News World Americas US politics
2 days ago
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law
to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his
father-in-law's
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.
At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8
billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start.
On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions
to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall,
a hotel and high-priced condominiums"
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange
for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has
gone to the very very very DARK side.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol
Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today,
and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that
NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and
missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive
Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going
back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against
Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election.
Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposedthe emails etcwere true information!
They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures,
not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because
it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue
today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative:
that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the worldsomething which it has pursued since the
end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicansie, the US ruling class behind themare committed
to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism,
but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am
Chris good post. Thanks.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual
post.
Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and
there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader".
http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not
believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S.
politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and
owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to
do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax
fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own
culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly
centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural
grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture
one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Hide Behind fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know
things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate'
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions,
that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include
all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making.
Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would
we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary
principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story'
and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed
it appears
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.
Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no
alternative.
How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy?
Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are
extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am
Spot on.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Deborah Andrew good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You
are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white),
but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how
are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Nice comment.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to
find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of
the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players,
or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially
well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy
them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for
maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later,
and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner
sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well
with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more
key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed
or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made
by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations
-- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to
be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you
must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction
of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the
topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone
on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and
persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will
deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms
of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek
to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep
within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players
can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE
READER SEES IT FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR there will usually be a minimum
of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get
permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay
the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important
with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less
does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story
is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that
B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company,
a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from
prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal
campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked
or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks,
just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question
now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written
off with the "no evidence" argument.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say
that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you
trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you
consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to
believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has
to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that
you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to
you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting
the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on
their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically
showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United
States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime
and terrorism in Syria.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm
When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're
being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".
exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy
theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not
the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though
it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something
they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless.
If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so
what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what
we must counter to wake people up.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds
to a rebuttal.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There
is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed
blog post
in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky
Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump
Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm
sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable
to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian
conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular
danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense
because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her
to win.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared
Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr.
said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act
and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly
good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever
surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this
specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting.
Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely
to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy
in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses
to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature
her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist
Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended
the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates
included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting
up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"
Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who
are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.
P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist.
Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity.
As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold
war.
Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS
Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in
a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin
if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but
still finished his documentary.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources
underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World
War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American
Republic is dead.
Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about
the censorship. Sad.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid
abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia),
and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm
My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc).
I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it for example how much Bezos paid
for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN
trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my
comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate
it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm
The cowardly claim of "censorship".
The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm
torrent for the film?
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting
read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page
intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William
Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken
on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying
effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (nιe Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman,
a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family,
were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was
required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator,
with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.
David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not.
Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy
crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating
Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited
friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the
items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper"
as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day
if you just read it.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out
that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican)
to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm
It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility"
and "standing" of William Browder.
Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and
slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.
But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and
the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.
David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond
by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the
moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really
over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary
Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during
a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton,
regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have
been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information
on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and
so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information
is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton
Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton
Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that
Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died
in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that
is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly
Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an
Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump,
then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans,
because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row
seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles
of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment
Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for
the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for
Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking
Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime,
or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets
of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not
affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during
the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District,
then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul
Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that
if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not
be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those
in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President,
and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could
be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for
the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic
and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid
McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States
are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is
Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions
that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.
"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to
flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain't gonna happen.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before
the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case,
days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors.
Hmmmm.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic
Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington,
Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation,
and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune.
Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
"... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
"... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
"... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer"
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic
journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented
an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with
all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was
their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.
The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There
was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse
post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill
articles from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have
a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the
political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas
and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia
in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported
the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave
..
I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the
Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive
in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a
'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth
the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on
MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank
videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original
being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear
on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their
ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear
not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed
outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a
French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's
evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant
in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders
for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is
baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst
it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy
to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell
us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the
Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'ιtat. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
"... The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. ..."
"... Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant . ..."
"... By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another. ..."
"... I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. ..."
"... At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation. ..."
"... The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore. ..."
"... John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day. ..."
"... So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia? If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism? ..."
"... In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave. ..."
"... I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..."
"... Browder is a spook. ..."
"... This "tactic" a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media. ..."
"... In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes ..."
"... I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up. ..."
"... The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy. ..."
"... The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc. Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket.. ..."
"... The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia? ..."
Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer"
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic
standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary
statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all
officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their
dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many,
people still remember.
Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international
crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles
from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods
..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the
breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political
right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions
and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not underdstand' in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in
the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the
rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave.
I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible
and seperate the Truths it containedf from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that pepeople were actually burned
alive in England for smuggling the Bible in english translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such
a 'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the
filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM
as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilising our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos.
Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being
and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled:
"MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel"
However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous
critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT
is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those
who the MSM ignore including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut.
RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake
news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told).
Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority.
The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless
and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn
out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of
$145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us
with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish
government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations.
It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
Being totally controlled by intelligence agencies is probably the wildest nightmare now...
And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond such a nightmare.
Any JFK files still classified have been totally scrubbed by this point. Anything damaging
was likely destroyed long ago. Anything left is there for a purpose.
As such they they likely contain more disinformation than information at this point and
it'll be hard to tell the difference between the two.
They all had their little so-called "Democratic Club" under Obama where they all thought
that'd prepare the way for more of their corrupt agenda by putting Hillary into Office. They
know now that all the activities like RussiaPhobia, rigging of the Democratic National
Committee, etc. were all part of the plot. Just remember that Obama was highly skilled in the
totally corrupted politics of Chicago and The State of Illinois that he helped to bancrupt.
He did a good job at the same thing in Washington D.C., brought in with the help of the CIA
(who he used to work for in Chicago) and run the deficit to levels every politician agreed to
where deficits don't matter, we can print as much as we want mentality. This is why you see
China, Russia and many other countries now looking at the warmongering corruption in
Washington D.C. and saying that federal politicians if you give them enough time will implode
the U.S. from within if you give them enough rope. Now you see the current CIA Director
meeting with James Rickards because he understands that economic implosion will hit their
agenda.
Boy are you right. A Republican run Congress and Senate in 2015 when the book, _Clinton
Cash_ made the best seller list. Apparently none of them read it and just now are getting
around to looking what has to be one of the largest criminal rackets ever run within that
City.
"as the Trump investigators -- in Congress, in the Justice Department, and the legions in
the media -- begin to grow strangely silent about the entire collusion charge" "America is in
a radical state of flux, or rather in a great accounting and recalibration, ranging from
government to popular culture. Hollywood lived a lie and now is not what it was just three
weeks ago. The NFL was based on known but ignored hypocrisies and is no longer the league it
was in September. The media has put rank partisanship before truth and lost ideologically and
morally. And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond our wildest nightmares.
"
Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics
professor, and scholar of ancient warfare.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who has lied, leaked and who wrote the Hillary report weeks
before any key players, including Hillary, were interviewed, wants us to know the FBI is
"honest", "strong", and "independent". The man who leaked and connived to get a special
prosecutor wants to convince us of that.
Jim Comey is the one who had no problem with Andrew McCabe's conflicts of interest. He is
the one who disgraced his own agency. He is the one who obstructed justice by declaring Hillary
Clinton innocent which he is not permitted to do in his role. The former director is the one
who lamented not being a "stronger" man.
Comey is sanctimonious, arrogant, supercilious, and narcissistic and he's not an agent, he's
a lawyer.
... ... ...
Does anyone doubt that Mueller, who has hired Hillary donors and activist
Democrats to investigate Trump, knew about Strzok's leanings? A top spy and he didn't know?
They are simply trying to silence us with their usual diversions. Don't fall for it. We
don't have to be blindly obedient to these people.
Pete Strzok is the agent who caught Flynn lying. Set up?
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken
together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with
its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente)
with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake
narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and
is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or
opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of
solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and
status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in
the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding
in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the
level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now
are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of
'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election
has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist
Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings
from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black
Americans by law enforcement."
In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who
had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling,
appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.
"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We
all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations
and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing
on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will
end."
The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media
off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress
rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne
Feinstein and
Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal
lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of
media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.
Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian
efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine
the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms.
But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to
Facebook's data
, 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to
anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through
or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed
to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not
exactly a viral smash.
Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total
content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts
targeted "animal
lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed "
Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According
to its " deliberately
broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part,
documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked
ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have
shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad
spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.
However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping
82 percent of Democrats
that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned
comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the
attacks of 9/11
. And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.
As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled
experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that
flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities.
Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.
So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?
Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship
A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy
Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian
bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his
employers at FPRI
hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential
election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."
Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits,
including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint
Terror Task Force.
Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs
as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship
from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.
Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to
popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.
Before Congress, a String of Deceptions
Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were
novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate,
helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.
In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence
of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, "
The Good and The Bad
of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its
human rights abuses , sectarianism and
off-and-on alliances
with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian
government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as
"an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."
Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later,
urging the
U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms,
should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression,"
he wrote. In another paper, Watts
asked
, "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia
and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought
to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.
The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their
sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda,
the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was
named by Spanish
investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected
a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.
Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article
were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and
a look at his single tweet promoting the
article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime
change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information
warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political
divisions."
Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in
American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active
measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast
transcript of his testimony) was a
single link
to an RT article that factually documented
a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets,
from the
Houston
Chronicle to the
Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual
events.
Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his
opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S.
airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence
operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In
reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.
In the articles
cited
by Watts during his testimony, neither
RT nor
Sputnik made
any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced
their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually
every major Turkish news organization (
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). What's more,
the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase
from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed
the severity of the event,
citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover."
This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.
Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including
Politico . Democratic
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
echoed Watts'
false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim
Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent,
reproduced
Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization
or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.
Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.
Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court
During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures"
to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably
why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.
Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him
to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.
The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly
from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi.
The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email
by Blumenthal.
The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service
funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran
scrubbed
his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar,
a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.
In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation.
With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the
nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national
platform to
highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several
months fighting to correct the record.
When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he
offered
Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald
had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting
Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran
once again as a foreign agent.
When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression.
He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for
defamation and libel.
Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's
articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts
made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.
The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a
cable news star, with
invites
from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received
coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become
the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.
FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name
recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been
described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War
days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."
Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a
similar characterization
of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign
policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members
of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led
the charge."
FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupι, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding
from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupι gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners
to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian
fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization
described by journalists
Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination
of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, "
The Geography of Intellect
," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising."
Strausz-Hupι seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational
thought."
While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause
mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupι and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to
drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."
Ultimately, Strausz-Hupι's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve
in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy.
Today, he is remembered fondly
on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic
legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.
The Paranoid Style
This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling.
Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been
mysteriously scrubbed
from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments
examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable
claims about Russian influence.
While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he
believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said,
claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."
"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from
their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or
offer any examples.
"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign
and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."
It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no
details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues.
He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."
According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is
the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success
with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely
unexamined.
Domestic Agent of Influence
"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break
one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars
doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."
By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners
in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."
Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James
Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have
triggered congressional hearings.
Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation,
this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress
and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock
us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.
In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and
consular raids to arbitrary
crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.
It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had
approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called
the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media
outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and
ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes
overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating
Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.
"... Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its professional journalism) led the charge with this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website and a think tank staffed by charlatans like this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before somebody has to go in there and shoot him? ..."
"... In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US "Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring that Trump " had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also around the time when liberals first learned of the Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which Obama had allegedly slept. ..."
"... This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in 1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers" video. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
First came the overwhelming shock of Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump, a repulsive, word
salad-babbling buffoon with absolutely no political experience who the media had been
portraying to liberals as the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler. This was a candidate, let's
recall, who jabbered about building a "beautiful wall" to protect us from the hordes of
"Mexican rapists" and other "bad hombres" who were invading America, and who had boasted about
grabbing women "by the pussy" like a prepubescent 6th grade boy. While he had served as a
perfect foil for Clinton, and had provided hours of entertainment in a comic book villain kind
of way, the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency was inconceivable in the minds of liberals.
So, when it happened, it was like the Martians had invaded.
Mass hysteria gripped the nation. There was beaucoup wailing and gnashing of teeth. Liberals
began exhibiting irrational and, in some cases, rather disturbing behaviors. Many degenerated
into dissociative states and just sat there with their phones for hours obsessively reloading
the popular vote count, which Clinton had won, on FiveThirtyEight. Others festooned
themselves with safety pins and went out looking for defenseless minorities who they could
"demonstrate solidarity" with. Owen Jones flew in from London to join his colleague Steven
Thrasher, who was organizing a guerilla force to resist "
the normalization of Trump " and the global race war he was about to launch, which "not all
of us were going to get out of alive."
At that point, the media had been hammering hard on the Trump-is-Hitler narrative for
months, so they had to stick with that for a while. It had only been a few weeks, after all,
since The Wall Street
Journal , The
New York Times , The Washington Post , The Guardian , and numerous other
establishment publications , had explained how Trump was using special fascist code words
like "global elites," "international banks," and "lobbyists" to signal his virulent hatred of
the Jews to the millions of Americans who, according to the media, were secretly Hitler-loving
fascists.
This initial post-election propaganda was understandably somewhat awkward, as the plan had
been to be able to celebrate the "Triumph of Love over the Forces of Hate," and the demise of
the latest Hitlerian bogeyman. But this was the risk the ruling classes took when they chose to
go ahead and Hitlerize Trump, which they wouldn't have done if they'd thought for a moment that
he had a chance of actually winning the election. That's the tricky thing about Hitlerizing
people. You need to be able to kill them, eventually. If you don't, when they turn out not to
be Hitler, your narrative kind of falls apart, and the people you've fear-mongered into a
frenzy of frothing, self-righteous fake-Hitler-hatred end up feeling like a bunch of dupes
who'll believe anything the government tells them. This is why, normally, you only Hitlerize
foreign despots you can kill with impunity. This is Hitlerization 101 stuff, which the ruling
classes ignored in this case, which the left poor liberals terrified that Trump was actually
going to start building Trump-branded death camps and rounding up the Jews.
Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces
rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion
dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its
professional journalism) led the charge with
this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website
and a think tank staffed by charlatans like
this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia
expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee
appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces
followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of
scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before
somebody has to go in there and shoot him?
In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going
balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's
remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US
"Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had
hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring
that Trump "
had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also
around the time when liberals first learned of the
Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB
had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which
Obama had allegedly slept.
This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to
take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in
1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war
with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who
Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers"
video. Putin had presumably been "running" Trump since Trump's visit to Russia in 2013 to
hobnob with "Russia-linked" Russian businessmen and attend the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
During the ensuing partying, Trump must have gotten loaded on Diet Coke and gotten carried away
with those Russian hookers. Now, Putin had him by the short hairs and was forcing him to staff
his Manchurian cabinet with corporate CEOs and Goldman Sachs guys, who probably had also been
videotaped by the FSB in Moscow hotels paying hookers to pee on furniture, or performing
whatever other type of seditious, perverted kink they were into.
Before the poor liberals had time to process this, the ruling classes launched "the
Resistance." You remember the Pussyhat
People , don't you? And the global corporate PR campaign which accompanied their historic
"Womens' March" on Washington? Do you remember liberals like Michael Moore shrieking for the feds to arrest
Donald Trump ? Or publications like The New York Times , Salon , and many others, and even State
Satirist Stephen Colbert accusing Trump and anyone who supported him of treason a crime,
let's recall, that is punishable by death? Do you remember folks like William Kristol and Rob "the Meathead"
Reiner demanding that the "deep state" launch a coup against Trump to rescue America from
the Russian infiltrators?
Ironically, the roll-out of this "Russiagate" hysteria was so successful that it peaked too
soon, and prematurely backlashed all over itself. By March, when Trump had not been arrested,
nor otherwise removed from office, liberals, who by that time the corporate media had teased
into an incoherent, throbbing state of anticipation were well, rather disappointed. By April,
they were exhibiting all the hallmark symptoms of clinical psychosis. This mental breakdown was
due to the fact that the media pundits and government spooks who had been telling them that
Trump was Hitler, and then a Russian sleeper agent, were now telling them that he wasn't so
bad , because he'd pointlessly bombed a Syrian airstrip, and dropped a $314 million Massive
Ordnance Air Blast bomb on some alleged "terrorist caves" in Afghanistan.
As if liberals' poor brains weren't rattled enough, the corporate media then switched back
to, first, the Russian Propaganda narrative (which they expanded into a global threat), then,
the Hitler stuff again, but this time Trump wasn't actually Hitler, because Putin was Hitler,
or at least he was fomenting Hitlerism throughout the West with his legions of fascist hacker
bots who were "influencing" unsuspecting consumers with their blitzkrieg of divisive "fake
news" stories. Oh, yeah, and now
Putin had also done Brexit , or Trump and Robert Mercer had, but they were working for
Putin, who had also hacked the
French election that he hadn't hacked , or whatever
this was no time to worry about what had or hadn't actually happened. The peace and prosperity
President Obama had reestablished throughout the West by incessantly bombing the Greater Middle
East and bailing out his pals at the Wall Street banks was being torn asunder by Vladimir
Putin, who at some point had apparently metamorphosized from a ruthless, former KGB autocrat
into a white supremacist megalomaniac.
Right on cue, on the weekend of August 11-12 in Charlottesville, Virginia,
where there had never been any history of racism , a "national gathering" of approximately
five hundred tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan types, and other white supremacists,
many of them barking Nazi slogans, marched into the pages of history. Never before have so few
fascists owed so much to the mainstream media, which showered them with overwrought coverage,
triggering a national Nazi panic. Liberals poured into the streets, tearing down Confederate
monuments, and otherwise signaling their total intolerance of the racism they had tolerated
until a few days earlier.
People named after Robert E. Lee , and horses named after
General Lee's horse , went into hiding to until the panic subsided. This was wise, as by
then the so-called anti-fascists were showing up in force at anything resembling a right-wing
rally and stomping the living Hitler out of Nazis, and Trump supporters, and journalists, and
well, anyone they didn't think looked quite right. This totally preemptively self-defensive,
non-violent type of violent behavior, naturally, shocked and horrified liberals, who are
strongly opposed to all forms of violence that aren't carried out by the US military, or the
police, or someone else wearing a uniform. Unsure as to whom they were supposed to condemn, the
Nazis or the Antifa terrorists, they turned for guidance to the corporate ruling classes, who
informed them
it was time to censor the Internet .
This made about as much sense as any of the other nonsense they'd been spoonfed so far, so
liberals decided to get behind it, or at least look the other way while it happened. Facebook,
Google, Amazon, Twitter (and all the other corporations that control the Internet, the media,
Hollywood, the publishing industry, and every other means of representing "reality") surely
have people's best interests at heart. Plus, they're only censoring the Nazis, and the
terrorists, and the Russian "fake news" disseminators, and, OK, a lot of leftist publications, and
award-winning journalists , and anyone else espousing "divisive," anti-American, or
anti-corporate, "extremist" views.
Look, I know what you're probably thinking, but it isn't like liberals don't actually care
about fundamental liberal values like freedom of the press and speech and all that. It's just
that they desperately need the Democrats to take back the House and the Senate next year, so
they can get on with impeaching Trump, and if they have to stand by while the corporations
suppress a little leftist dissent, or, you know, transform the entire Internet into a massive,
mind-numbing echo chamber of neo-McCarthyite corporate conformity well, sacrifices have to be
made.
This can't go on forever, after all. This level of full-blown mass hysteria can only be
sustained for so long. It's all fine and good to be able to whip people up into a frenzied mob,
but at some point you need to have an endgame. The neoliberal ruling classes know this. Their
endgame is actually fairly simple. Their plan is to (a) make an example of Trump to discourage
any future billionaire idiots from screwing with their simulation of democracy, and (b)
demonize anyone deviating from neoliberal ideology as a fascist, racist, or anti-Semite, or
otherwise "abnormal" or "extremist." Their plan is not to incinerate the entire planet
in a war with Russia. We're not on the brink of World War III, despite how many Twitter likes
or Facebook shares it might get me to say that. Yes, eventually, they want to force Russia to
return to the kind of "cooperation" it engaged in during the 1990s, when it was run by an
incorrigible drunkard and the Goldman Sachs boys and their oligarch pals were looting the
country for all it was worth but that has little to do with all this.
No, the corporate ruling classes' endgame here is to reestablish neoliberal "normality," so
we can get back to the War on Terror (or whatever they'll be calling it by then), and put this
neo-nationalist revolt against neoliberalism episode behind us. To do that, they will need
to install some sort of hopey-changey, Obama-like messiah, or at least somebody who can play
the part of POTUS like a normal person and not sit around the Oval Office gobbling McDonald's
and retweeting racist memes by random British fascists.
The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there
eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by
obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not colluding
with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes are surely
about to fall. Once they all have, and Donald Trump's head has been mounted on a spike on the
White House lawn as a warning to any other potential usurpers, all this Russia and Nazi
hysteria that has the poor liberals running around like headless chickens will disappear.
Russia will go back to being Russia. The North American Nazi Menace, deprived of daily media
coverage, will go back to being a fringe phenomenon. Liberals will go back to ignoring politics
(except identity politics, naturally) and obediently serving the global capitalist ruling
elites that are destroying the planet, and the lives of millions of human beings, in order to
increase their profit margins. Sure, there'll be a brief emotional hangover, once the
adrenaline rush wears off and they look back at their tweets and Facebook posts, which in
hindsight might convey the impression that they spent the better part of a year parroting
whatever insane propaganda the corporate media pumped out at them, and otherwise behaving like
Good
Americans but then, that's what the "delete" key is for.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there
eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by
obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not
colluding with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes
are surely about to fall."
Thanks, now I understand where Judge Napolitano is coming from.
"... What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. ..."
"... He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); ..."
"... he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. ..."
"... He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. ..."
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his
father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus
on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed
HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000
for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen);
he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important
and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well.
The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential
in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty
common for people in his field and position.
I know nothing of him other than what is in the press but his partisan interference in investigations appears to be a blot
on the honor of the FBI but then I am old fashioned. pl
WJ,
I first learned about this man from a comment of David Habakkuk (in an earlier post) and was curious to learn more about him.
As you point out, ΄internet is not your friend΄ in his case. Your comment gives so far the most information about his doings.
Thank you. According to David Habakkuk that surname is polish, but it possibly be other slavic origin as well ( possibly Jidish
?)
Given Strzok's career, I wouldn't expect to find much, if anything, about him on the internet. If he spent his career working
"in the shadows," he rightly would have stayed off the internet. He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved
in CI activities targeting Russian and China. Anyone actively working in a classified environment would be grossly negligent
to allow himself to be plastered all over the internet. Why do you think I still use a light cover of TTG just to post here years
after retiring? It's just force of habit.
I was glad to hear that Mueller banished him to HR as soon as his anti-Trump emails were discovered. If he stayed, he would
have cast an ugly shadow over the Mueller investigation. It's much like the partisan shadow extending over much of the NY FBI
office. Their pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stance was notorious. I also think the FBI should review the entire Clinton email server
file in light of this.
Don't know how bureaucracies work in DC. Remembering how placement in HR was a goal for activists. HR is obscure and unglamorous
- how is it banishment for someone with an agenda who works in the shadows?
"... Pentagon "weaponised information" years ago: " Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ".) ..."
"... The collapse of the Fusion GPS operation will unravel the whole construction. And it's coming . ( And don't forget Awan .) All this because the Dems fixed their nomination and then lost anyway. ..."
Posted by: fastfreddy | Dec 6, 2017 9:46:35 AM |
43
Operation Mockingbird never ended. It wasn't a social experiment whereby they try it for a
while and then shut it down. History shows the precursors to it. Goebbels, Freud, Bernays...
We had Reagan's termination of the "Fairness Doctrine".
We had/have Bill Clinton's Media Consolidation which violates monopoly/anti-trust laws.
Now six (war profiteering) corps own every bit of the MSM.
It is not in their interest to tell the truth.
We had Obama legalize the dissemination of government propaganda. And legalize domestic
surveillance via retroactive immunity for telecom.
There is no mainstream investigative journalism. That's not the way it works.
This is two years old exchange from the Guardian reader forum. Nothing changed...
Notable quotes:
"... The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America, is a good book to read, it documents boasts from the CIA that they controlled western media and at the press of a button could hear the same tune played all over the western world. ..."
"... The people in the 'western' world think their media is 'free', 'unbiased', 'investigated' but in sad reality it is far from any of those things. It is a mega phone for the narrative the govts of the west (primarily US, UK, EU and sadly Australia) want amplified. ..."
"... I am not sure how it works with the MSM. What I have noticed over the years, is that in certain times of war or geopolitical maneuvorings, the BBC and Guardian (and others), but especially those two, seem to have some sort of agreement with the Intelligence Services/Foreign Office to write subtle propaganda or lead with a certain narrative. ..."
"... This means, the producers or editors at the BBC have agreed with the Security services to allow them to control the media at certain times. Likewise, we see the same in the Guardian, especially at certain times. ..."
21st Century Wire founder was on cross talk recently with others that are trying to call
the media out on these things.
>It seems to me that the Intelligence Services have colonised the media. The Mighty Wurlitzer:
How the CIA Played America, is a good book to read, it documents boasts from the CIA that they
controlled western media and at the press of a button could hear the same tune played all over
the western world.
Really, it is up to Guardian and BBC journalists and broadcasters to take a long hard look
at themselves and ask why am I being made to sell war propaganda? the BBC news 24 channel had
someone on trying to talk up a war with Russia last night, as I was watching it I was
wondering if the BBC News presenter, an intelligent man, would have enough moral fibre to
realize he is being used to sell a warmongering narrative? But he didnt, which is why I can no
longer pay that organisation anymore money.
stregs101 -> RussBrown 9 Feb 2015 21:00
I agree.
The people in the 'western' world think their media is 'free', 'unbiased', 'investigated'
but in sad reality it is far from any of those things. It is a mega phone for the narrative
the govts of the west (primarily US, UK, EU and sadly Australia) want amplified.
Last week there was an article promoting 'full scale war' in relation to arming Kiev. This
type of reporting is actually deemed a 'crime against the peace' under Nuremberg.
By upholding the lies and fabrications of US foreign policy, the mainstream media is complicit
in war crimes. Without media propaganda, this military agenda under the guise of counter-terrorism would fall
flat, collapse like a deck of cards.
21st Century Wire founder was on cross talk recently with others that are trying to call
the media out on these things.
RussBrown -> seaspan 9 Feb 2015 19:54
I am not sure how it works with the MSM. What I have noticed over the years, is that in
certain times of war or geopolitical maneuvorings, the BBC and Guardian (and others), but
especially those two, seem to have some sort of agreement with the Intelligence
Services/Foreign Office to write subtle propaganda or lead with a certain narrative.
Take for
example the BBC headlines yesterday, top story was 15 people killed in Ukraine and calls to
arm Kiev against Russian aggression. Now the this was TOP news story, the BBC have totally
ignored reporting Ukrainian civilian massacres (over 5000 have died), until they are selling a
narrative they want to persuade everyone with, such as that we need to arm Kiev against
Russian aggression.
This means, the producers or editors at the BBC have agreed with the
Security services to allow them to control the media at certain times. Likewise, we see the
same in the Guardian, especially at certain times.
So the anti-Russian campaign probably started after Sochi Olympics if nor earlier. Now we see just a new stage of it.
Notable quotes:
"... Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian Empire the day afterwards. ..."
"... West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and conquer the world! ..."
"... For nearly two hours, the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. ..."
"... So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled, leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state what the evidence is.]). ..."
"... I stopped reading the FT years ago . For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass * politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked apparently 1 in 7 of us are). ..."
Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either
Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts
accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian
Empire the day afterwards.
West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and
conquer the world!
Extracts from the FT article: "Battle for Ukraine:
How the west lost Putin"
It was past 10pm and the German chancellor was sitting in a Hilton hotel conference room
in Brisbane, Australia. Her interlocutor was the implacable Vladimir Putin. For nearly two hours,
the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the
cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had
ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
The chancellor steered the conversation back to eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists
were engaged in a bloody struggle against the western-backed government in Kiev, according
to a person familiar with the meeting [WHO? No names, no pack drill?]. Since
the crisis began, Ms Merkel [Why Ms? She is "Frau" and she is married. Does the journalist
not know that? Does he think that Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants to keep her marital status a secret?
Fucking PC crap!] had worked hard to extract some sense from Mr Putin of what he wanted - something
she could use to construct an agreement. When he finally offered a solution, she was shocked.
Mr Putin declared Kiev should deal with the rebels the way he had dealt with Russia's breakaway
Chechnya region: by buying them off with autonomy and money. A reasonable idea, perhaps, to an
ex-KGB colonel. But for an East German pastor's daughter, with a deeply-ingrained sense of fairness,
this was unacceptable.
Ms Merkel had asked her closest advisers to stay outside during the Brisbane meeting,
on November 15 last year. "She wanted to be alone . . . to test whether she could get Putin to
be more open about what he really wants",says someone briefed on the conversation [WHO?].
"But he wouldn't say what his strategy is, because he doesn't know".
For Moscow, too, something snapped. Weeks later, a Kremlin official [WHO?]
dismissed the notion, often cited in diplomatic circles, that there had ever been a "special relationship"
between the two leaders. "Putin and Merkel could never stand each other", he told the Financial
Times. "Of course, they are professionals, so they tried to make the best of it for a long time.
But that seems to have changed now."
The Merkel-Putin encounter in Australia marked a turning point. After a year of crisis,
the west realised that it had been pursuing an illusion: for all its post-communist tribulations,
Russia was always seen to be on an inexorable path of convergence with Europe and the west - what a senior German official [WHO?]
calls the notion that "in the end,
they'll all become like us".
So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the
unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled,
leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its
costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the
ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state
what the evidence is.]).
According to a senior Washington official [WHO?], Mr Poroshenko,
the oligarch elected Ukraine's president in May, was anxious to hold face-to-face meetings with
Mr Putin. But he wanted other leaders in the room capable of holding Mr Putin to commitments.
Ms Merkel was the obvious choice. "The administration's view is that she's the best interlocutor
that we have in the west with Putin," says an ex-US diplomat [WHO?].
US President Barack Obama has held his own share of calls with Mr Putin, but he has largely
taken a back seat. US insiders [WHO?] say the president feels Mr Putin
was unresponsive to efforts to build a relationship. "Obama sees the world in win-win terms, Putin
sees it in zero-sum terms", says the ex-diplomat. The two have a visible lack of chemistry. In
Mr Obama's words, Mr Putin has a "kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the
classroom".
Diplomats suspect [WHICH DIPLOMATS?] Mr Putin is surrounded
by yes-men afraid to give him the unvarnished truth. They suggest, for example, that he has been
surprised by the strength of EU unity over sanctions.
She prepares meticulously, studying maps of eastern Ukraine and poring over them in meetings
and phone calls with Mr Putin. "There are maps and charts, with roads and checkpoints", says a European diplomat [WHO?]. "She has these details. She knows about
them."
In public, Ms Merkel has not said Mr Putin has lied, but she has in private
[TO WHOM?]. "'He's lying', that's what she says to all the other leaders," says
the EU diplomat.
A partygoer [WHO?] close to Ms Merkel recalls her saying little
about the disaster. "The chancellor doesn't like to speak about something until she is sure of
her facts. But she was shaken. It was horrendous."
"The Russians just weren't credible. They got beaten", says a senior Washington official
[WHO?].
Asked why Mr Putin did not turn MH17 into an opportunity for reconciliation, a
former senior Kremlin official [WHO?] said: "Because he was insulted. He acted emotionally.
Because your side came out before anything was clear, accusing him of all sorts of things".
and on and on and on.
I've just got fed up of noting the unsubstantiated statements. And to make all this even more
annoying,each time I cut and pasted, I received the following notification off FT:
"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others
using the link below, do not cut & paste the article."
I stopped reading the FT years ago. For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had
a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass*
politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably
one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked apparently 1 in 7 of us are).
The thing is, none of this should surprise us as established journalism has only got
worse. Alternative media fortunately has grown on the back of this atrophy of the circle jerk
club. What this goes to show is that the discerning news consumer now looks elsewhere for its
news because the Pork Pie News Networks are so transparently bullshit in the extreme and even
more unapologetic when they are caught with their pants down pretending to be milking grandma's
cow in the middle of the night.
If Putin became 'emotional' every time he was insulted by the west, he wouldn't have gotten out
of bed since about 2003. Jeez, the crap these guys write.
So neo McCarthyism witch hunt that is rampant now is just more of the same.
Notable quotes:
"... The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information," and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda. ..."
"... One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe a state media outlet. ..."
"... Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl. ..."
"... Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified. ..."
"... Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer "fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions. ..."
"... All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find out where that truth is, just how bad that is." ..."
"... Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda. ..."
"... As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda system, is intolerable" to the US establishment. ..."
"... I love it when .gov shows their hand. ..."
"... Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government. ..."
"... Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrativ ..."
"... Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for god sake. ..."
"... The US Propaganda Machine has just jumped the shark. ..."
"... It jumped the shark awhile ago. Like all corrupt governments, the government of the United States accuses others of behavior the US blatantly engages in itself. A few gems regarding our own "online troll army": http://www.wired.com/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaga... ..."
"... And let's not forget that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 included a provision to repeal the ban on government propaganda being directed at American citizens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fisc... ..."
"... Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time. ..."
"... The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time. ..."
"... So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for that one too? ..."
"... Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current psyop. ..."
"... US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech? ..."
Submitted by Paul Joseph Watson via PrisonPlanet.com,
Bloggers, conspiracy theorists and people who challenge establishment narratives on the Internet were all likened to ISIS terrorists
during a chilling Congressional hearing which took place yesterday.
The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information,"
and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda.
One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media
last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe a state media
outlet.
Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge
establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they
find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl.
Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT
as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified.
"By using the Internet to mobilize people that feel displaced, that feel like they've been on the outskirts of society, and give
them a place where they can find a sense of belonging, and maybe make a difference in their own way, and it's a problem," she said.
Wahl went on to bemoan the fact that conspiracy theorists were "shaping the discussion online, on message boards, on Twitter,
on social media," before asserting that the web had become a beacon of "disinformation, false theories, people that are just trying
to make a name for themselves, bloggers or whatever, that have absolutely no accountability for the truth, that are able to rile
up a mass amount of people online."
Committee Chairman Ed Royce then proceeded to accuse people on YouTube of using "raw violence" to advance conspiracy theories.
Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer
"fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were
challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions.
All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we
had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find
out where that truth is, just how bad that is."
Beyond the inflammatory rhetoric, the real story revolves around the fact that Washington was caught off guard by the rapid growth
of RT, with Hillary Clinton and others having acknowledged the fact that the U.S. is "losing the information war," which is why they
are now desperately trying to denigrate the Russian broadcaster.
Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy
that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda.
There's no mystery behind why RT has become so big telling the truth is popular but because Washington finds it impossible
to compete on that basis, it has been forced to resort to ad hominem attacks and ludicrous comparisons to ISIS in a desperate bid
to level the playing field.
As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda
system, is intolerable" to the US establishment.
_SILENCER
I love it when .gov shows their hand.
Fukushima Sam
You fucking bastards, you give me a version of events like "9/11" and the "Boston Marathon Bombing" that actually seem to jibe
with reality and maybe then I'll stop being a "conspiracy theorist".
LetThemEatRand
Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined
by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government.
nmewn
It should also be pointed out that Bernanke is now "a blogger" at the Brookings Institute and one helluva "conspiracy theorist"
in his own right...lol.
I guess some nutters are more equal than others ;-)
Supernova Born
Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number
of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrative)
clymer
Thanks RT for not thoroughly vetting that bitchy douche. Now if we could all go back to CNN like the nice little drones that
we are... (Lauren Lyster ended up at CBS - WTF is with RT hand-picking these opportunists - reminds of ironically of Yuri Bezmenov
speaking of hiring jouralists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc
-- they didn't learn from their own program)
Captain Debtcrash
Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try
and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely
about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there
is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for
god sake.
Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're
gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some
point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time.
BLOTTO
I've post previously...but always a good read.
'What is a "conspiracy theorist?
The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy
theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim
that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food
corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington
D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time.
People who are not skeptics of "official stories" tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you
is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.'
It's hilarious watching in the land of the free as they try to find a way around the First Amendment to ban RT.......
Gaius Frakkin
So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the
Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for
that one too?
So who are the REAL paranoid, deranged, scared out of their wits about losing power, conspiracy theorists?
Element
Like glib acceptance of any flaky old crap that drifts into your transom, you mean?
oh ... that's completely different ...
Right?
--
If people buy into nonsense and BS stories of their own volition, this is hardly going to be changed at the stroke of a pen
of a legislative chamber all agreeing on some policy of state action to ban or else accept some aspect of public discourse.
cro_maat
Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current
psyop.
TheFourthStooge-ing
US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are
simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing
in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech?
Sorry, US citizens, your propaganda techniques are too old by now. Most people know them. Especially the Russians:
The translator of this Russian article notes that America throwing more resources into the info war is a sign of Russia's victories
and America's agony in this theater of operations.
EU Observer: EU mulls response to Russia's information war
The Netherlands is funding a study on how the EU can fight back against Russia's "information
war", in one of several counter-propaganda initiatives.
The Dutch-sponsored study was launched in the New Year by the European Endowment for Democracy
(EED), a Brussels-based foundation.
But little happened until the Netherlands stepped in with the EED grant after a passenger plane,
flight MH17, was shot down over east Ukraine killing 193 Dutch nationals and 105 other people.
Evidence indicates Russia-controlled rebels caused the disaster using a Russia-supplied rocket
system.
But Russian state media have tried to sow suspicion the Ukrainian air force did it in order to
prompt Western intervention in the conflict
Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, and the UK are drafting an informal paper on how EU institutions
and Nato can co-ordinate "strategic communications"
Its foreign ministry spokesman, Karlis Eihenbaums, told this website that around 15 EU states
back the project and that the news broadcasts should be available in Russia if they can get past
its "jamming system".
But Riga is trying to play down expectations of a quick result.
"I don't think we can come to an agreement among the 28 [EU leaders] to come up with a new TV
station in Russian. Euronews is already doing news in Russian, so it'll be difficult to get an additional
channel", Latvian PM Laimdota Straujuma told press in the Latvian capital on Wednesday (7 January).
Well-funded Russian broadcasters, such as RT, have hired big names, including former CNN anchor
Larry King, and air programmes in English, French, German, and Spanish as well as Russian.
Their work is backed up by pseudo-NGOs.
Putting the Dutch grant in perspective, the British think-tank, Chatham House estimates the Russian
"NGO" component alone is worth $100 million a year.
Western media have caught Russian media using fake pictures and fake witness accounts of alleged
Ukrainian atrocities.
Eihenbaums noted that any EU news channel "must be attractive, but with accurate information
it must not be a propaganda organ".
He cited RFE/RFL, a US-funded broadcaster, and the BBC as models because they do both Ukraine-critical
and Russia-critical stories.
###
If you can't smell the excrement off that, then get thee to a medic!
Now, considering the piece above, try not to hold back a large guffaw for this one!
Know that when they speak of
Kyrzbekistan, they're not just stenographers, they're incompetent stenographers.
Take what
they say, turn it upside down, and you'll have a better take on reality.
THE MERKEL MYSTERY. I, like many, thought, when the Ukraine crisis began, that German Chancellor
Merkel would prove to be key in settling it. This has not proved to be the case at all; in fact
she often throws more fuel on the fire. I believe that
Gilbert Doctorow may have
the answer. In essence, he believes that Berlin dreams the "pre-WWI dream of Mitteleuropa"
with cheap, docile workers in Poland, Ukraine and the others forever. Of course, it hasn't worked
out very well, but that, he thinks, was the plan. There was no "End
of History" after all; a rebirth of history it seems.
Looks like the credibility of the US establishment might collapse under weight of all lies
that it perpetuated.
Americans and Russians should be natural partners in a multipolar world to widespread
benefit. The current situation dominated by neo-McCarthyism witch hunt is tragic. Looks like the
current neoliberal elite is truly evil, so there is not much hope for a change there. The
American people are overall decent and generous, but their abysmal lack of (or even interest) in
history and ignorance of the current events might be their undoing, I'm afraid.
Notable quotes:
"... The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head. ..."
Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor
"investigating" a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to
destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is
anything but orchestrated fake news. As William Binney and other top experts have said, if
there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it. No investigation would be necessary. So
where is the evidence?
It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated
while a real scandal is not. The fake scandal is Trump's Russiagate. The real scandal is
Hillary Clinton's uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous
evidence for Hillary's scandal lies in plain view. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html
Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true
charges against Hillary not being investigated? The answer is that Hillary with her hostility
toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the "New Hitler" is not a
threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump's aim of
normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the "enemy" it
requires to justify its massive budget and power.
Why hasn't President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary? Is the
answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him? Why hasn't the
Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own? Is the answer that Trump's
government is allied with his enemies?
How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to
overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States? Why doesn't Trump have
Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United
States?
Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges
against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income? Why instead is Congress
harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview
become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee's investigation into "Russian active
measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?" There were no such active measures, but the
uranium sale was real.
Why haven't the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists
been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can't make a pass at a woman?
Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.
The failure of the US and European media is extreme.
The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question
inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over
and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is
driven into the public's head.
Consider, for example, the Obama regime's claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his
"compound" in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base. The official story had
to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had
watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs' helmets had to be abandoned. There was no reason to
withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to
have watched the killing became a "miscommunication." The staged photo of the top government
officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html
The entire story never made any sense: Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife,
was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the
"terrorist mastermind" from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the
political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American
superpower?
Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama's body dumped in the ocean. In other words, why
was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?
Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier? Why was no
media interested that the ship's crew wrote home that no such burial took place?
Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out because the members were asking one another, "who was
on that raid?" "Were you on the bin Laden raid?" When in fact no one was on the raid.
Here is bin Laden's last confirmed interview. He says he had nothing to do with 9/11. Why
would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating "the world's only superpower" fail to boost
his movement by claiming credit? https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/
Think about this. The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it
is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public's consciousness.
And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and
the presstitutes and turned into truth. Washington's self-serving control over explanations has
removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.
So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are
led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news?
Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite.
If you look at the role
of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players
with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today
and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser
counterparts around the world.
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the
horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they
are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to
do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals
but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.
This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power
elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their
ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the
name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign
powers."
The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt
has done so for many, many centuries.
... ... ...
From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control
of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on
the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose
existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of
the government or private life they were connected.
This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty,
a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger
and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.
Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this
dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?
... ... ...
Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out,
go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject
defeat for the other.
Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the
Gulf War in Iraq.
... ... ...
This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism
and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare,
economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically
designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous
loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of
war equipment.
One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide
comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities
of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.
This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders
at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John
F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen,
and religious leaders.
The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions
of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it
is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.
It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined
generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.
Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service
with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against
all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive
and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage,
and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.
The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence
and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created
to be; however, it does not exist.
Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend
to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act.
As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that
National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3
The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more
than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Notable quotes:
"... These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire. ..."
Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in
and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news')
media.
They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing
business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left)
are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being
"fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own
mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD'
(but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically
that blatant lie to the public).
Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003)
been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some
of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting'
(passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the
catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying
Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media.
That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those
media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now
censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies
including the
European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all,
will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?
Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at
the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of
the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.
One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover
headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia
Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their
menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump
Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as
"potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America"
(as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy
Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of
being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's
V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia
investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially,
treason.'"
These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them
up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick,
and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and
centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's
President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and
many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward
Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in
precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.
The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it
simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO
ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM
WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine)
was:
"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the
United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through
fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these
societies protect themselves?"
The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the
same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news,
disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect
themselves?"
The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing
-- and doing it even
worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end
of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other
countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)
Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the
American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages
and accounts" were "using Facebook to
incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" ,
and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the
multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be
viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making
firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to
NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other
fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC"
nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?
Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older
mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by
'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump,
alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .
And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main
'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper,
was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No
evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a
military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February
2011, even Politico was
reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the
Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W.
Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New
York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by
headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed
Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired
lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into
Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons
material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam
Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998;
but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made
available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply
lied about the entire matter .
Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and
repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public
don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real
'public servants' at all.
The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and
the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by
which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied
nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .
if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email
servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable
crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.
why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to
record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?
how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour
hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and
its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either
the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).
i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton
lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits
on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover
of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on
terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.
"... That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day. ..."
"... Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"... ..."
WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of
Trump-Russia CollusionTyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES
CNN and
New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a
candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security
Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his
employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that
I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no
idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.
Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any
confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots
with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."
PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"
Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or
manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."
"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion,
would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we
haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."
"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what
would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."
Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing
Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot"
and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA
Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the
views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has
presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different
Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of
narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every
day.
Like this one...
Or this one if you prefer...
Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by
Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing
instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to
see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently
CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...
...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably
means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.
MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as
their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between
Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing,
we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIIIpic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6
Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing
of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand
why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an
indictment.
State Department is actually has dual function -- one is to be an intelligence agency. And as such it is fully responsible for the
current anti-Russian witch hunt. So the level of hypocrisy is simply staggering. But not surprising: way too many neocons infiltrated
the agency under Hillary Clinton and her predecessor.
The problem with responding to this move is that the USA is still the global superpower and technological leader in many areas,
including semiconductors. So Russians need to be very careful not to overstep the boundaries and slip into tip for tat mode.
The huge advantage of the USA is that it conducts its propaganda campaign against Russia mostly via private newspapers that have
foreign correspondents in Russia as well as fifth column of Russian neoliberals and their news outlets. Which are closely working with
the US sponsored NGO. Same is true for GB. Actually after reading Guardian correspondents coverage from Russia it is unclear whether
Guardian is a branch on MI6 or not ;-). I don not remember the name of a person who was expelled from Russia for collecting information
from the transmitter masked as a "stone" in Moscow park.
Some minor measures directly against "foreign financed" domestic new outlets actually could be more effective that sweeping registration
of (mostly ineffective and unpopular) US government channels as "foreign agents".
Notable quotes:
"... Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation". ..."
"... The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people found that RT ..."
"... The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT ..."
"... "We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..."
"... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned news network. ..."
"... Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center ..."
"... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. ..."
"... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. ..."
"... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. ..."
"... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government. ..."
"... It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and we don't find that 'funny'. ..."
"... "And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators, supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria, Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills." ..."
"... After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only connected to the power outlet. ..."
"... The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence, is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000 (or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'. ..."
"... Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American people? That must be it. ..."
"... Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of deal with in the future. ..."
"... Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is far too impulsive. ..."
"... RT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc. ..."
"... Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water, submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona. He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters. ..."
"... Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system (certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity. ..."
"... To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations all around them.....sigh ..."
"... To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their fόhrer. ..."
"... Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/ ..."
"... US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian. ..."
"... Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay online with the message ..."
"... It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West. ..."
"... I'm calling them the Worst Generation. Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt. ..."
"... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire... ..."
"... 1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil, that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc. ..."
"... 2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more. They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. ..."
"... An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists. The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours. ..."
"... Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts. ..."
State Department Condemns* Designation Of Media As Foreign Agents (*only applies to Russia)
UPDATED below
---
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to
label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including
speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation".
The remark came after the U.S. Department of Justice required the Russian outlet RT America to register as a 'foreign
agent' under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). RT registered as ordered on November 13.
But the State Department statement was NOT in response to the DOJ requirement against RT . The State Department reacted
to a new Russian law that was issued in response to the demand against RT . The new Russian law is a mirror
to the U.S. FARA law. It demands that foreign media which are active in Russia register as 'foreign agents'. The EU poodles followed
the State Department nonsense with an equally dumb statement.)
With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department
confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.
The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people
found that RT was too truthful in its reporting to be allowed to inform the U.S. public. Publication of criticism of the
U.S. government based on verifiable facts is seen as an unfriendly act which must be punished.
Congress and the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration followed up on that. FARA is originally NOT directed against
foreign media. The Trump Justice Department circumvented the spirit of the law to apply it to RT .
The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT would be followed up on with
a similar requirement against U.S. media in Russia. The Trump administration ignored those warnings. It now condemns the Russian
move.
"We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're
doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about
human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned
news network.
Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking - Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally
published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center
RT America TV , a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of
programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties
... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against
"the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.
... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use.
... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national
debt.
... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information
wars" against the Syrian Government.
U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC),
and U.S. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in foreign agent registration requirements
that Russia Today exploited extensively during last year's presidential election.
RT said late Monday that the company that supplies all the services for its RT America channel was told by the DOJ in a letter
that it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , an act aimed at lobbyists and lawyers representing
foreign political interests.
...
FARA specifically exempts US and foreign news organizations, and the DOJ focus on the company that supplies services for RT
might be a way around that stipulation.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's parliament warned on Friday some U.S. and other foreign media could be declared "foreign agents" and
obliged to regularly declare full details of their funding, finances and staffing.
...
Russian lawmakers said the move was retaliation for a demand by the U.S. Department of Justice that Kremlin-backed TV station
RT register in the United States as a "foreign agent", something Moscow has said it regards as an unfriendly act.
MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Kremlin-backed television station RT America registered Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice
as a "foreign agent" in the United States, the outlet's editor in chief said and the Department of Justice confirmed later in
the day.
MOSCOW Russia's Justice Ministry has warned several U.S. government-funded news outlets they could be designated as foreign
agents under a new bill that has yet to be fully approved.
The bill , endorsed by Russia's lower house on Wednesday, comes in response to U.S. demands that Russian state-funded RT TV
register as a foreign agent. It needs to be approved by the upper house and signed by President Vladimir Putin to become law.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law Saturday a new bill designating international media outlets as foreign agents
in retaliation for a similar measure taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state-funded RT television
BRUSSELS -- The European Union has criticized legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin that empowers Russia's government
to designate media outlets receiving funding from abroad as "foreign agents" and impose sanctions against them.
...
Maja Kocijancic, the spokesperson of the European Commission for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said in
a November 26 statement that the "legislation goes against Russia's human rights obligations and commitments."
New Russian legislation that allows the Ministry of Justice to label media outlets as "foreign agents" and to monitor or block
certain internet activity presents yet another threat to free media in Russia. Freedom of expression -- including speech and media
which a government may find inconvenient -- is a universal human rights obligation Russia has pledged to uphold.
With a few words less the statement by the State Department would have gained universality. It would have made perfect sense.
See here for a corrected version:
Unfortunately the State Department's spokesperson
added some verbose lamenting about one specific
country. It thereby exposed itself to the very criticism the U.S. government strives to suppress.
---
UPDATE - Nov 30 0:50am
As consequence of the FARA designation of RT 's U.S. production company RT is
now losing access to
the Congressional Gallery. Congress Gallery access is in turn required to get White House press credentials. RT is now likely
to lose those too.
Meanwhile a consultative Congress commission is
pressing to designate the Chinese news-agency XINHUA as 'foreign agent'. It also wants all staff of XINHUA
to register as such. That would make it nearly impossible for freelancer and others who work for multiple media to continue with
their XINHUA gigs.
Posted by b on November 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM |
Permalink
Yeah. Whatever. This is how Russia is supposed to respond. If the US does something, Russia is should respond immediately. Not
several months or a year down the road. Stop waiting for the spoiled brat to get it. They never will.
It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the
players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and
we don't find that 'funny'.
thanks b... well, once again american hypocrisy is on public display... i guess someone is hoping that ignorance and a short memory
will rule the day..
Speaking of hypocrisy, on 20 Nov 2017, one day after the Arab League Confab--which now ought to become known as the Zionist-Arab
League -- Nasrallah gave a speech calling out all those nations that supported Daesh, particularly the Outlaw US Empire. Video
of the speech in French with English subs and a very partial transcript are here,
http://sayed7asan.blogspot.com/ with a longer partial transcript
available at The Saker's blog.
Excerpt:
"Of course, we will also need real festivities to celebrate the victory because it will be a great victory, a victory against
the organization representing the greatest danger (for all) that soiled more than anyone the religion of Muhammad b. Abdillah,
peace and blessings be upon him and his family, since 1,400 years. This will be the victory of humanistic and moral values against
horrific bestiality, cruelty and violence. A victory that will have a huge impact on the cultural, religious, humanitarian, military,
security, political levels, as well as on the very image (of Islam and Muslims) and at all levels.
"And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites
and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators,
supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria,
Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with
depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills."
Once again, how much longer will people deny that what was formerly know as US government has turned into a Fascist regime - with
the dictating done by Plutocrats whose names are not even known, in spite of everybody being surveilled. Just not the owners of
the Nazi Sicherheits Agentur.
After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA
and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently
and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never
done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only
connected to the power outlet.
Please let me know if anybody else has the same experience with their hardware. Also, I can no longer send emails on all accounts,
but I do receive junk.
------
The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence,
is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000
(or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'.
The paymasters don't even bother any longer that the public is waking up based on their Fascist activities and actions. They
don't give the proverbial F about people finding out and understanding what is actually happening in the Nazi High Five regimes.
What are people going to do? Demonstrate against Fascism? Concerting a total consumer boycott - the antonym of 'go shopping'?
Writing letters to misrepresentatives?
It certainly looks like the shit has piled up behind the fan like never before and the so called "happy holidays" seem to be
the perfect time to flip the switch to "ON".
Sad, that through the incessant propaganda and Nationalism force fed to the lesser mentally gifted part of the population for
centuries now, the people are no longer capable to do what the Declaration of Independence provides them to do (theoretically):
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The authors of these 'goddamn pieces of papers' must have already used Orwellian lingo, since it appears that this paragraph
only refers to regime change in other Nations, just not in the US.
Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American
people? That must be it.
Maybe one can call in at the regime department and tell them about psychological projection? The number is 1-800-FUC-KYOU.
Yes, it's almost the same number Obama had chosen for criticism of the ACA - 1-800-381-2596. That is what these parasites think
about "the people".
Now what? Following the advice of some people to not only see the negative shit on Earth? Sure, the genocide on the Palestinians
and the Yemenis (plus countless other 'obstacles') is actually a good thing, correct? Because those who are exterminated now,
won't have to experience worse down the line.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is getting out of public hands faster than the Ludicrous Speed of the "We Brake
For Nobody"-Imperial Starship.
Trump's as naked as the ape he actually is. Weird way to go about cultivating better relations with Russia. As with Obama previously,
much of what Trump campaigned on is being reversed, the opposite of his orated intent being implemented instead. A commentator
at Sputnik was shocked that I lumped Trump together with the criminals Clinton and Obama, wanting an explanation why I did so.
Obviously, that person isn't paying attention, and I told him so.
Even supposedly impartial international organizations continue to abet the Outlaw US Empire's Big Lies: "A press freedom watchdog,
Reporters Without Borders, has asked the Swiss Press Club to cancel a panel discussion on the 'true agenda' of the controversial
White Helmets group. But the club's director won't budge, noting that such demands are typically made by oppressive regimes."
Kudos for foreign agent RT for providing the report,
https://www.rt.com/news/411116-reporters-white-helmets-censorship/
Activist Post tells us that the presentation's by Vanessa Beeley, with Bradon Turbeville adding this observation: "Rather than
attend the event to ask questions and present its side of the argument, RWB responded with insults and hid away under the guise
of boycotting the panel. Pouting in the corner and refusing to take part in the discussion, however, did not stop the discussion
from taking place." Lots of additional info and many links here,
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/despite-western-funded-ngos-boycott-vanessa-beeley-exposes-white-helmets-at-swiss-press-club.html
Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US
empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment
do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of
deal with in the future.
I don't give a damn what the Federal government wants me to see or hear, but obviously this is being done for the "benefit" of
the majority of the public who will not look very far to get "informed" about current/world events. I don't see any end to this
fascist process here in the "land of the free"; how long before they just shut down the net or limit it to approved websites?
Beyond the personae and the relative intelligence of Clinton vs Obama vs Trump, one must admit that times are different. Both
China and Russia are on the rise. China is now a formidable rival in economic terms and is rising militarily. And fast. Russia
is recuperating from Gorbachev's treason and getting stronger by the day and is nowa World player to be reckoned with.
There is one thing that must be solved and that is the money exchange system through which gates most countries must pass to
obtain their dues. China and Russia are working on it. Once this is complete, US sanctions will work no more. Even new internets
are being created that will bypass the US controlled one.
There is not much anybody can do against the realignment of the globe. The Unipolar model is gone because the US could not
manage it. Greed, U.S. greed, and exceptionalism killed it.
North Korea just proves that the US power and influence have limits. I presume, I may be wrong, that once KJU has a good enough
number of warheads and rockets, he will want the US to vacate South Korea. Both the Russians and Chinese will love that. He will
want sanctions lifted and see normal relations resume between NOKO and China and Russia.
There is no point for him to rock the boat if he does not pursue greater aims.
Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is
far too impulsive. But I guess deep down we would like the outcome to be better than the circumstances would lead us
to expect. The US will remain a Zionist puppet for as long as Israel exists. If it is down to Israel's will, America will pass,
but Zion will prevail. Jared is now the transmission belt in the Saudi, Israel, US triad. Which means that Israel has a personal
ambassador to Trump. Because of the internal opposition to Trump, he must look for an external happening that will remove him
from public scrutiny. He wont tackle Kim but he might believe Iran is gamer as he has allies in the endeavor.
Nobody will win this war but Israel may lose more than expected.
Another line just got crossed. I dislike the phrase "breaking news"-- it's a fraternal twin to "breaking wind"-- butRT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have
been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering
Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc.
Sorry to not provide a link, but this
is so recent it isn't even on YouTube yet. It will be interesting to see whether the Western civil-liberties and "media-watchdog"
organizations, including the ACLU, react to this draconian development, much less vociferously protest it. In any case, I doubt
if we'll see the rest of the Congressional press corps stage a walkout in sympathy and solidarity with their silenced and censored
RT colleagues.
Agree on China Russia ect, though I am starting to believe Trump is not impulsive, rather, he runs very well thought out stratagies.
The impulsiveness is part of the persona. I run onto an analysis of how Trump opertes the persona within a narrow band, and he
uses it to gain attention and then direct attention to where he wants it.
I think this video is worth watching - the first half deals mainly with Trump's persona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA5pOmSDgQ
Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water,
submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump
that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona.
He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage
of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters.
Perimetr: Censoring the Internet is what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. If they repeal Net Neutrality, we can expect
sites like Moon of Alabama to just spool and spool but never load, whereas CNN and Fox will load immediately.
RE SlapHappy. That makes sense. I already see that happening with RT on my iPhone. So now we will need Radio Free Russia
to be set up in where, Mexico?
There is not much new in the heavy-handed methods employed by the Empire - they have always employed intimidation, false flags,
fake news, bribery and corruption, even assassination -but up till now went to some pains to cloak their actions in a mantle of
morality. They usually attempted to swing public opinion behind their endeavours. What is frightening lately, is their brashness
and total disregard for the public's opinion. Because they know that short of armed revolt, they have little to fear. The presstitute
media shall whitewash their hypocrisy and all their crimes, and at election time they will once more own all the candidates.
Happening on google/youtube excessively. Stuff like the Jimmy Dore show, or any other critical outlet does not load, or takes
forever respectively. Doggie videos and those showing stupid people doing stupid stuff - load instantly. It will be interesting
to see, whence net neutrality is neutered, how the owners of the country will deal with the backlash of billions in lost revenue
from online commerce.
Because people that can't get what they want when they don't shop, are unlikely to shop online any longer. The stench of censorship
will keep those online consumers away - if not alone for endless loading times due to not being able to pay $ 800 per month for
high speed internet.
First time US legalized targeting of media as "terrorists" thanks to neocon John Bolton and his zionist cohorts. Being labeled
foreign agent is getting off easy http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/168921.html
Are shortwave radios going to make a comeback? RT World Service?
It's tough to make out what the US endgame is in all this. It's probably even tougher to make out if the PTB in the US know
what the endgame is. Open-ended, freestyle, ante-upping (by the US) devolution of any and all rational forms of coexistence, imo,
with zero good outcomes.
Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system
(certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity.
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. After the park come
the state/region/nation/world/universe. See how far yet they have to expand their hypocrisy.....why they are just getting warmed
up......is China news next? To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations
all around them.....sigh
Would be interesting to read the transcript of the next State Department Press Briefing, which the State spokesmodel must be dreading
- talk about being handed an impossible brief......
Those briefings normally start with Matt Lee from Associated Press asking the first question, but I suspect that this time
he'll start by turning to the RT reporter who is sitting in the back of the room and saying something along the lines of "No,
please, you go first.....".
While people are distracted by what is happening between Washington and Moscow, an election is being stolen and Clintonists
will do nothing about it because Clinton and Obama made the thief, Juan Orlando Hernαndez, president of Honduras.
Back in 2009:
a cadre of military officers, businessmen, and right-wing politicians, including Hernαndez, overthrew the leftist President
Manuel Zelaya
with encouragement and assistance from Hillary Clinton and the State Department.
Contrary to what the New Yorker goes on to say " after he vowed to run for re-election" Zelaya tried to organise a referendum
to change the constitution to allow him to run a second time which many Clintonists attacked as being anti-democratic. Juan Orlando
Hernαndez then packed the Supreme Court with his own supporters and had the constitution changed without a word of complaint from
the State Department under Obama or any of the Clintonists who'd accused Zelaya of being anti-democratic.
Over the next few days I expect to see those same Clintonists accusing Trump of being anti-democratic for failing to object
to Juan Orlando Hernαndez stealing the election but ignoring or excusing the responsibility Hillary Clinton has for what has happened
just like they claim that Hillary Clinton has no responsibility for restoring slavery to Libya.
To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while
some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their fόhrer.
Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons
and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/
US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what
it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian.
Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination
of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay
online with the message
It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically
an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West.
failure of imagination | Nov 29, 2017 11:03:32 PM |
42
Full Spectrum Quicksand. Grasping for national interests and not looking too confident. When I watch it on TV at other's places
( I just don't get TV...) I noticed it next to PornPerPay in the guide for a reason , tho not a fair one. They've had a CFR member
on staff, so my Mockingbird tinfoil strainer gets going finer. I don't hear them being accused of wrong stories so, it's sour
gripes. The couple of times RT came into a conversation was about Redacted Tonite.
I'm calling them the Worst Generation.
Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt.
@41 forest.. thanks.. if that is what toivo thinks, then all i got to say to that is fascinating! i see it exactly the opposite..
it is the usa that is constantly lying... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it
came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire...
@all - I updated the post with RT's
loss of Congress Gallery
credentials because it has now been put under FARA. Following from that RT will also lose White House credentials. Additionally
a congress commission now
wants to put The Chinese Xinhua agency under FARA and also all individually staff that works for Xinhua.
Interesting times of the media war. US removed RT credentials to access Congress, I'm sure they will follow up with banning RT
from the White House too. Russia will probably ban US media from Kremlin and other institutions in the mirror law. Whats
next? US ban on Russian-linked media from US networks/satellites like they did with Iran? Will they dare to apply similar treatment
to China? Interesting times indeed.
@ ToivoS | 34
why ban US propagated bullshit
Two reasons:
1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news
presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil,
that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc.
2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more.
They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. How they will affect Russia's presidential
elections, etc. if they are as confined as RT, but are losing even more because they have many more channels? They shot one
bullet at Russia and got a ricochet of 10 bullets :)
An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists.
The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is
very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours.
Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure
US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts.
WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of
Trump-Russia CollusionTyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES
CNN and
New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a
candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security
Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his
employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that
I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no
idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.
Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any
confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots
with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."
PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"
Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or
manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."
"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion,
would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we
haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."
"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what
would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."
Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing
Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot"
and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA
Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the
views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has
presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different
Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of
narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every
day.
Like this one...
Or this one if you prefer...
Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by
Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing
instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to
see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently
CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...
...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably
means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.
MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as
their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between
Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing,
we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIIIpic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6
Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing
of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand
why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an
indictment.
The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more
than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in
and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news')
media.
They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing
business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left)
are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being
"fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own
mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD'
(but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically
that blatant lie to the public).
Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003)
been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some
of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting'
(passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the
catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying
Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media.
That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those
media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now
censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies
including the
European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all,
will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?
Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at
the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of
the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.
One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover
headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia
Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their
menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump
Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as
"potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America"
(as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy
Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of
being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's
V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia
investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially,
treason.'"
These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them
up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick,
and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and
centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's
President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and
many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward
Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in
precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.
The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it
simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO
ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM
WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine)
was:
"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the
United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through
fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these
societies protect themselves?"
The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the
same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news,
disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect
themselves?"
The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing
-- and doing it even
worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end
of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other
countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)
Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the
American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages
and accounts" were "using Facebook to
incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" ,
and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the
multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be
viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making
firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to
NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other
fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC"
nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?
Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older
mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by
'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump,
alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .
And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main
'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper,
was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No
evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a
military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February
2011, even Politico was
reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the
Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W.
Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New
York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by
headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed
Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired
lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into
Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons
material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam
Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998;
but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made
available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply
lied about the entire matter .
Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and
repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public
don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real
'public servants' at all.
The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and
the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by
which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied
nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .
if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email
servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable
crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.
why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to
record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?
how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour
hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and
its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either
the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).
i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton
lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits
on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover
of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on
terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.
Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance
hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning
talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were
sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the
2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed
to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."
Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor
did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.
There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations
that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked
Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:
I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were
taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of
the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media
efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is
trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.
In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small
army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted
on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a
case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the
leaders of this campaign.
The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over
again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called
Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence
of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that
cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:
Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.
So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such
judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the
entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately
trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?
Here's Brennan again on Sunday:
I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility
for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's
still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian
threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.
There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings
of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact."
Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts
admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given
that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid
lead let alone any compelling evidence.
We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations
that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage
or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people
are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.
These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent
Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves
acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda
to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.
Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're
supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing
that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer
Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:
Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid
the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no
WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.
In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans.
After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was
clearly erroneous for which I apologize." .
Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference"
in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices
of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever,
which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)
So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing
on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?
He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied
on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?
And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:
"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and
rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping
program
Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying
when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .
Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in
Yemen targeting people without even knowing who they are and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for
execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director
nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)
So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone
attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing
apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA
These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands
of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?
Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.
As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust
what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a
compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are
shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.
Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than
that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington
establishment will never allow to happen.
What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or
less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could
have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing
away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing
his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist
and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief
Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.
He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent
his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.
Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.
Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee
brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still
at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the
FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.
We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors'
claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It
has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including
Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.
What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet
sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage
and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about
money and conflicts of interest.
We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back
by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into
English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line
is suddenly back on the table.
Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign
state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that
is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which
in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.
Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and
sent to prison for life.
It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.
And since when are the three not related?
It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state
sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.
Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing
but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.
Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan
is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective.
One ugly customer!
Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup
of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social
websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing
more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio,
848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow
the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU
parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.
Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were
killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which
the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.
That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and
a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth,
they are still waiting for the jobs.
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player
named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that
every sports tabloid wants to know.
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next
US president wisely.
There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US that come the
next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and
after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers,
but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..
Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?
versus
A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?
I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity
in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime
to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.
We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate
who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women
was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.
And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories
to convince voters to vote against Trump.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very
hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.
But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote
their website.
As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can
take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press
Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a
few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And
most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple
ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied
by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were
connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever
logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries),
logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled
for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".
Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can
be many reasons people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what
is known, the ads and postings were so diverse some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not
directly linked to the elections and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely
as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.
Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be
necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with
the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar
random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make
sense to speculate about the reasons.
We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to
Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia
any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but
in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but
in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).
What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social
media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order
to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign
had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What
would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians
who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"?
After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about
this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which
ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion
narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would
that make it nefarious?
I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense.
If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense it might not
be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret
services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory
that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly
not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked
how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have
been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over
to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails
to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social
media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social
media election campaign hardly makes sense.
The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior
to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics.
Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this
might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly
superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns
spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them
according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary
abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate
basic principles of common sense.
Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly,
many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"
I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing
the elections" to drop it is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.
The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if
it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life
and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the
US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted
as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan
are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a
legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody
like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is
still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole
thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or
criminal themselves.
The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read
these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their
interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.
The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.
"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as
a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international
mainstream media.
The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim
that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to
be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and
Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command
of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous
Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on
stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in
each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." witnesses Nergadze.
The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was
to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."
Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment
and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."
Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported
"government" in Kiev came about naturally.
An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:
"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives
of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99
"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted
a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!"
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml
The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another
case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Krakσw became the
target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood
Ukrainians."
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/
"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of
vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the
place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this
cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process
up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War
with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported
by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum
dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia
decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI
century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something
is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espaρol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.
For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary
of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S.
administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.
The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean
nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump
urged
Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic
sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.
Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have
abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the
deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in
2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision
to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that
Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.
North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar
Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya
back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed
Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North
Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement
with Pyongyang
nearly
impossible.
The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security
Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing
that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes.
Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.
Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates
succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:
The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds
that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets
steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced
they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad
in Syria.
The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had
cynically
misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German
Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance
would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation
is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly
matters of
intensecontroversy . But invoking
a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.
There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been
part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully
tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which
would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.
The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another
example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia,
a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo
for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West
would use subsequently in Libya.
Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt
for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear
that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition
of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial
move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their
own.
Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing
international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point
explicitly in a February 2008 State Department
briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.
It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign
policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and
the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with
Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue
through diplomacy are so bleak.
Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy
objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books,
the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.
you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just
buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.
This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent
years.
One point in particular jumped out at me:
"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian
(and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly
bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU
members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders
protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent.
Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."
This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia
is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espaρol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and
the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and,
more famously, in Ukraine.
You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one
of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU decisions that indicate these countries feared a
Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.
The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently
on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block
countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts
to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess.
Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around
the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus
unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with
only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled
by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!
Most seriously
of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong,
even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.
And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin,
is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing,
isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's
country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?
The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government,
supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because
the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.
Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."
I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this,
I don't know.
"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "
If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What
do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we
call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of
influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.
At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass
destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.
One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what
it wants.
Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU decisions that indicate these countries
feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad
or backyard."
Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering
and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large
percentage of the bill.
Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.
Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military
presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed
by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely,
after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well
done.)
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan
's precedent.
The subtext here of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements is even more relevant with respect
to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace
of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.
Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal
aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it
is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about
"projecting" in every sense of the word an equally globalist US ideology.
We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter,
as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War
ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't
want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters
of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated
USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything
on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".
The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities
in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya
etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't
connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters
of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the
Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for
Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's
Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35
million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?
Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia
as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that
construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision
and Putin knows it.
In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's
been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove
(former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks
whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.
U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending
the befuddled taxpayers the bill.
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym
for "oral."
I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for
oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."
Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded
a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every
time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian
cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.
As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with
the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations
of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there
are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty
comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?
When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine
where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its
foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.
"... In a CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it as a way to "undermine" the media establishment. ..."
"... The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles "fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for "anyone in the world" to have a platform. ..."
"... Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely backfired. ..."
"... This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most inaccurate reporting. ..."
"... The Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication. ..."
"... The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most consistently dishonest entity of all. ..."
"... Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term altogether? ..."
CNN is now pushing an effort to "ban the term fake news" after the slogan became synonymous
with CNN itself thanks to President Donald Trump.
In a
CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with
the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become
meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it
as a way to "undermine" the media establishment.
The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles
"fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for
"anyone in the world" to have a platform.
Remember when the mainstream media & the Hillary campaign invented the term "fake news"
in an effort to discredit alternative & right of center media outlets?
Complaining that "less powerful agents can harm large institutions or established
individuals," Derakhshan and Wardle warn that trust in institutions is declining and that only
through intervention at the level of "public education" (ie indoctrination) can this be
reversed.
Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is
because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of
center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely
backfired.
This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that
a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most
inaccurate reporting.
We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the
most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President
(me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!
"Fake news" was one of many excuses trotted out after November last year to push the
narrative that President Trump's election was somehow illegitimate.
In reality, a major Stanford University study found
that "even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of
Americans," and that the most widely believed fake news stories were those that benefited
Hillary Clinton.
Fake news had virtually no impact on the election, but the establishment media weaponized
the term as part of an agenda to silence and censor voices of dissent, including media
platforms, that had opposed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
In addition, mainstream media news coverage in the weeks leading up to the election was 91%
negative towards Trump, according to a
study by the Media Research Center.
The
Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the
Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication.
The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the
media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most
consistently dishonest entity of all.
Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term
altogether?
"... The recent exchanges over the Russia-US relationship exhibit perfectly how the Deep State operates to control the message. ..."
"... Beyond twisting narratives, Russiagate is also producing potentially dangerous collateral damage to free speech, as one of the objectives of those in the Deep State is to rein in the current internet driven relatively free access to information. In its most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of 200 websites that were "guilty" of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros funded think tank identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be "useful idiots" for Moscow, and legitimate Russian media outlets will be required to register as foreign agents. ..."
"... Hegemonic Empire always attacks those nations who are perceived to be weaker than the Empire. ..."
"... Never in my long life have I ever seen such twistedness in the mainstream media. In the days of Nixon and Watergate, there was a media agenda. But it was based in truth. This crap we get now is complete Deep State party line. ..."
"... I wonder if there ever was a time in history where the media in a country was so full of fabrication and propaganda. If there was, I would be interested in hearing how they had a downfall. It seems the media in this country can be so completely covered in deceit and lies and false claims, yet somehow not be accountable for it. ..."
"... The whole Russiagate bullshite has once again destroyed the credibility of the intel agencies and the media. Really old idiots are in charge of these things. ..."
It is not possible to overstate the power of certain constituencies and corporate lobbies in the United States.
These pressure groups, joined by powerful government agencies, many of which have secret agendas that focus on national security,
constitute what is increasingly being recognized as "Deep State America." Deep State is the widespread belief that there exists in
many countries an entrenched and largely hidden infrastructure that really controls the national narrative and runs things. It explains
why, for example, a country like the United States is perpetually at war even though the wars have been disastrous failures ever
since Korea and have not made the nation more secure.
To be sure, certain constituencies have benefitted from global instability and conflict, to include defense industries, big government
in general, and the national security state . They all work together and hand-in-hand with the corporate media to sustain the narrative
that the United States is perpetually under threat, even though it is not.
The recent exchanges over the Russia-US relationship exhibit perfectly how the Deep State operates to control the message.
American President Donald Trump briefly met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. Putin
reportedly told Trump
that Russia "absolutely had not meddled" in the 2016 US election and Trump then told reporters that he believed the Russian leader
meant what he said, "which is good." As dιtente with Russia is not considered desirable by the Deep State, there was an immediate
explosion of a contrary narrative, namely that Trump believes a Russian "enemy" and does not trust what his own intelligence agencies
have told him about 2016 because
he is being "played" by Putin.
This story was repeated both on television news and in all the mainstream newspapers without exception, eventually forcing Trump
to recant and say that he does believe in US intelligence.
Not a single major media outlet in the US reported that it just might be possible that Putin was telling the truth and that the
intelligence community, which has been wrong many times over the past twenty years, might have to look again at what it considers
to be evidence. No journalist had the courage to point out that the claims of the Washington national security team have been remarkably
devoid of anything credible to support the conclusions about what the Russian government might or might not have been up to. That
is what a good journalist is supposed to do and it has nothing to do with whether or not one admires or loathes either Putin or Trump.
That the relationship between Moscow and Washington should be regarded as important given the capability of either country to
incinerate the planet would appear to be a given, but the Washington-New York Establishment, which is euphemism for Deep State, is
actually more concerned with maintaining its own power by marginalizing Donald Trump and maintaining the perception that Vladimir
Putin is the enemy head of state of a Russia that is out to cripple American democracy.
Beyond twisting narratives, Russiagate is also producing potentially dangerous collateral damage to free speech, as one of
the objectives of those in the Deep State is to rein in the current internet driven relatively free access to information. In its
most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of
200 websites that were "guilty" of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros funded
think tank
identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be "useful idiots" for Moscow, and legitimate Russian media outlets will be
required to register as foreign agents.
Driven by Russophobia over the 2016 election, a group of leading social media corporations including Facebook, Google, Microsoft
and Twitter have been experimenting with ways
to self-censor their product to keep out foreign generated or "hate" content.
They even have a label for it:
"cyberhate"
. Congress is also toying with legislation that will make certain viewpoints unacceptable or even illegal, including a so-called
Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that would potentially penalize
anyone who criticizes Israel and could serve as a model for banning other undesirable speech. "Defamatory speech" could even eventually
include any criticism of the government or political leaders, as is now the case in Turkey, which is the country where the "Deep
State" was invented.
Fear is the order of the day. Be very, very afraid of that militarily-weak nation on the other side of the world, who poses
no legitimate and imminent threat to the US. Hegemonic Empire always attacks those nations who are perceived to be weaker
than the Empire. It represents the death knell of Empire, and is typically the final stage of economic and political collapse.
Howard Beale: "We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all
ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think
that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you
eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In
God's name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them
off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of this sentence I am speaking to you now.
Turn them off!"
-- Network
If you are too young to have heard of this movie, now you know.
Never in my long life have I ever seen such twistedness in the mainstream media. In the days of Nixon and Watergate, there
was a media agenda. But it was based in truth. This crap we get now is complete Deep State party line.
I wonder if there ever was a time in history where the media in a country was so full of fabrication and propaganda. If
there was, I would be interested in hearing how they had a downfall. It seems the media in this country can be so completely covered
in deceit and lies and false claims, yet somehow not be accountable for it.
The only thing in history that I know that would compare to this is the Pravda in the old Soviet days of Brezhnev. And I'm
not sure how that came finally tumbling down.
The whole Russiagate bullshite has once again destroyed the credibility of the intel agencies and the media. Really old
idiots are in charge of these things.
(Legs for educational purposes only)
